Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:31, 13 July 2012

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:VA

	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.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 22, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 18, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Time Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Astronomy Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Metaphysics / Science High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics Philosophy of science Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mathematics Top‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Top This article has been rated as Top-priority on the project's priority scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Measurement (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Please add all new material at the bottom of this page. New material placed at the top is likely to be ignored by regular readers because they look for the most current stuff at the bottom where it belongs.

Template:WP1.0

The intro

I think the intro is erroneous. The intro starts with:

Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them

This is kind of a reification. The measuring systems are mental constructs in order to quantify some fundamental aspect of the reality. Confusions between reality and mental constructs abstracting them are classical reifications. Time is, according to my opinion,

a 4D space-time vector chosen to be parallel with the local vector of increased entropy,

but in order to be somewhat comprehensible to anyone, one could instead say:

time is a quality of our existence that defines increased decay and other processes described as "aging"

or some such. Rursus dixit. (bork!) 19:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Saying something is a component of our measuring system does not reify it. One might think so, though, if one supposed that every component of OUR measuring system (and/or the measuring system itself) were a thing. There is an ongoing debate about whether time can be considered an entity, and the lede draws attention to that. Whether time is real depends a lot on what one thinks "real" means (aren't concepts real?). Time cannot be easily defined, but what is given in the 1st paragraph is well sourced, and attempts to do no more than describe how we use the concept. What sources are there that define time as you propose? Can we assume this is not another attempt to have the first link go to Quality (philosophy)? The lede does not state that time has any "reality" beyond the way we construe it. --JimWae (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ehhm!!? I think saying something is of our measuring system does indeed reify it. A measurement requires a human observer adhering to a scientific consensus, which "exists" indeed, but it "exists" in the human brains, and possibly in a prototypical platonic reality depending on personal taste. But it is of outmost importance for the clarity of science to distinguish "cultural consensus existence" from the "material existence", and if so desired also from the "prototypical platonic existence". Measurement systems require a scientific consensus of what they represent.

If time is to be defined, it should be defined according to a scientific nominalist or realist philosophy which doesn't confuse the act of observation with the underlying reality and which presumes an underlying reality independent of human onlookers. The act of observation is something electrochemical in the scales of mm and m/s, while time seems to be related to quantum physics whose scales are small. They shouldn't be confused. Rursus dixit. (bork!) 10:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Rursus, I agree with your criticism, and have made similar criticisms of that passage here before. The problem here is JimWae exercises a kind of ownership of this article, and his views come from an obscure philosophical perspective that views time as some kind of illusion. He does not agree that time is a real phenomenon. Note he and I have some history: Over a year ago I successfully lobbied over a month to have the lede sentence be framed in more general terms along the lines of:

Time is the physical phenomenon of intrinsic change that permeates all of nature/universe...

I sourced it to a dictionary definition, although most other dictionaries use vague language. I managed to fight JimWae off and got support for this general kind of introduction as above. The article stood that way for some months until I came before the Arbitration Committee and was banned from editing for a year for an unrelated dispute. With me gone, JimWae took the opportunity to restore his version of the lede, with its "measuring systems" and "what a clock reads" etc. Time is something far greater than what one may gather from JimWae's definition. You can read our discussions from 2010 in the archives if you like. (archive link -Stevertigo (t | c) 09:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the current content of the lead. It is well sourced and it has been pretty stable over a long period of time and under a ton of contributors. The article has 440 watchers. I find that phrases like "JimWae exercises a kind of ownership of this article", "obscure philosophical perspective ", "fight JimWae off ", "JimWae took the opportunity to restore his version ", "all this nonsense", are highly inappropriate. Be careful. - DVdm (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

And yet Rursus' criticism about the lede sentence being a kind of reification fallacy is correct. And likewise my point about time being a real phenomenon (one that creates change) is also correct. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 09:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. Just be very careful. - DVdm (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a fallacy. Time is not "part of" anything except nature and the physical laws that govern it. And tt certainly isn't "part of measuring system" because measuring systems may exploit the phenomenon of time they do not fundamentally predate time. And regarding the Arbcom case, wasn't I the first one to reference it above? You don't need to do us any favors by referencing it again. -Stevertigo (t | c) 09:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I wish to reiterate my first improvement proposal:

time is a quality of our existence that defines increased decay and other processes described as "aging" (or increased disorder)

Time is something of the material universe, while our measurement systems are built upon an evolved cultural consensus, where we have invented a Language-game (per Wittgenstein) to convey absolute quantitative dimensions. The relation between time and measurement systems should be measures, not defines. It is acceptable to say that "time is measured by a measurement systems". A definition should however describe the topical entity and it's relation to previously known objects and processes whose qualities are known. Let's "define":

"pleasure" is what we measure by our questionaries,

"size" is what we measure with a ruler,

"intelligence" is what we measure with our Intelligence Quotient questionaries,

Do we define or clarify anything? Do we wish to frustrate our readers by giving something that is a reification of our presumed measurement systems bordering to a circular definition?

About consensus: a consensus doesn't build on warnings or threats, that's a false repressive consensus. A consensus builds on a reasoning that everybody will subscribe to. Rursus dixit. (bork!) 10:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for your proposal? We have some for the current statement. By the way, there is nothing wrong with defining size as what we measure with a ruler, just like there's nothing wrong with defining time as what we measure with a clock, as long as we have indeed proper definitions for rulers and clocks. For the latter, we do have a very precise definition. Nothing wrong with that. - DVdm (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe you either didn't read what I wrote, or don't understand. Read it again! Rursus dixit. (bork!) 10:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Reiterating: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Rursus dixit. (bork!) 10:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I did both. - DVdm (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Now, then, since you understand: yes, you have sources for how time is measured. What about a definition of time? Rursus dixit. (bork!) 10:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• What Is Time? One Physicist Hunts for the Ultimate Theory, times is related to entropy,
• WHAT IS TIME? WHAT CAUSES TIME?, time is an "emergent" concept, an "illusion",
• What is time?, many theories referred to,
• ScienceDaily, "Time is represented through change"

And I think that represents the most important theories. (Pardon for all inconveniences). Rursus dixit. (bork!) 10:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts)

Time is defined as what we read on a clock. That might not work for some philosophers, some of which who clearly think that "surely there must be more to that," but, together with this precise implicit definition of a clock, it does perfectly work for every scientist, every engineer and just about every man in the street — aka Misplaced Pages reader. That's what we call an operational definition. - DVdm (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be your opinion. And it's not a definition, it is a method of measurement. My opinion, which is supported by several of the sources, is that time is a direction which is put parallel with the vector of entropy. In the formulation of ordinary people, time is then a direction in which things are more likely to decay, to diffuse, to become diluted, to die. We can use how many references that we like, misusing them for confusing definitions with measurement methods don't make good wikipedia authoring. Rursus dixit. (bork!) 11:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is a definition. See, for instance, operational definition. Also have a look sometime at modern physics, where each observer has their own time, and where their times are directly related through transformation equations. Pretty straightforward and unambiguous. - DVdm (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No, a mapping from some concept to a measurement parameter is not an operational definition. An operational definition is a determination whether a measurement falls within an interval, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and it is just used as a scientific provisorium devised to prepare for a real examination of the underlying physics. Your description is not an operational definition, it's an equivocation of clock measurements and time.

1. Q: If time is defined by what clocks measure, what does clocks measure? A: time?

2. Q: If every living being in the universe by some unwanted process are annihilated, and their clocks, does time exist or not? A: undefined?

Rursus dixit. (bork!) 12:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

We associate an event with a number on a clock. We define that number as "the time of the event according to that clock". We measure the times of resp. the start event and the ending event of a process. We define the absolute value of the difference between the two numbers as "the time the process takes according to that clock". See also Metrology. That's operational — see Physics, Engineering, John Doe.

I think we should stop here per wp:TPG, since we are no longer discussing the article, but the subject. And we are severely repeating ourselves :-) - DVdm (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"Time is what a clock reads" is a definition for small children or simple wikipedia. It is not a definition written by knowledgeable people, who at least have some grasp of time as a physical reality - a phenomenon of nature.-Stevertigo (t | c) 22:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Rursus proposed: "time is a quality of our existence that defines increased decay and other processes described as "aging" (or increased disorder)" - Entropy is an observable property of physical change, but I don't think time itself can be defined as entropy. Just as time cannot be defined by its measurement, time also cannot be defined by its particular observables alone. However change itself is a broad enough concept to include. -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

New lede changes

Hey somebody is tinkering with a more general and accurate lede intro, and it looks good:

"Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. Time is a component quantity of many measurements used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience."

I would suggest something more along the line of "physical paradigm" or "physical phenomenon.." "..that creates continuous change" etc. Anyway, any attempt is an improvement. Look forward to seeing things develop. Regards to all, -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC) PS: I would suggest staying away from "conscious experience" because that opens up a big issue with regard to existentialism and psychology. If we regard the perceptual to have bearing on the issue of time itself, this kind of treatment is insufficient - there needs to be some deeper introduction to the perceptual. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither POV of time should be controlling. I put first the (ostensibly more philosophical) definition synthesized from the primary dictionary definitions of time in the first sentence, and then in the second sentence, it gets into the more particular concept of time as a physical and a perceptual quantity of "stuff" (the measurement thing, in that way time is a dimension of physical "stuff" in a similar manner as length, mass, and electric charge - pretty much any other physical quantity, incl. temperature, can be derived or expressed in terms of those four dimensions of quantity). Because humans and other beings measure time long before there was ever a clock, we measure it with our experience of the passage of time, I believe it is important to lay out (in the second sentence) both the aspect of time independent of our being (that is time exists in physical reality long before any thinking being was around to notice) and in the context of our conscious experience (because, ultimately, any physical measurement of time is simply and extension of our senses). So we need both concepts or POVs to be NPOV. 71.169.190.235 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hadith: "Allah is Time"

Something that could be added to the Religion section:

• "..the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: Allah said: Sons of Adam inveigh against Time, and I am Time, in My hand is the night and the day." --cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/qudsi.php

• "...the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, Allah (Exalted be He) says: The son of Adam hurts Me by cursing time, as I am Time. I turn around the night and day. In another narration, Do not curse time, as Allah is Time." --alifta.net

--Kray0n (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In western culture, we have the concept of "Father Time," the concept is related. The passages above of course do not mean that God is literally "time," rather that God has mastery over time in a way that humans do not. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In Greek mythology we have Chronos creator of the cosmos out of chaos and father of the gods.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

First sentence discussion

I am removing the first sentence from the article and placing it here for discussion. This is because I don't think it is based on a reliable source, and because there is really nothing about the relationship of existence to time within the contents of the cited source. Furthermore, the relationship between existence and time seems to be a deep and knotty subject. It may require more space than an opening sentence in a Misplaced Pages article. IN any case this sentence may not belong as the first sentence of the introduction. Hence, the sentence with the reference is as follows: ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

Primary definitions:

thefreedictionary.com 1.

a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.

c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.

d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 a.m.

e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary 1

a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration

b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

American Heritage Dictionary 1.

a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration:a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.

c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval:ran the course in a time just under four minutes.

d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes:checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 AM.

e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned:solar time.

Oxford English Dictionary

1. A limited stretch or space of continued existence, as the interval between two successive events or acts, or the period through which an action, condition, or state continues.

(I cannot get into the online version of it. Copied directly out of the Compact OED © 1971)

Before reverting, let's discuss this well researched definition synthesized from several verifiable and reliable sources. Needless to say, I fully disagree with Steve Quinn about it. It appears that Stevertigo and I are on the very same page. 71.169.190.235 (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

First, this was added to my original post above which I have now placed here "Time is a component quantity of many measurements used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience."

Please do not do stuff like this because it muddies the discussion. I was at first referring to only the lede sentence above. So now please let me know what you intend for the second sentence. Also please do not focus on me as the only editor who has made changes since I started this discussion. Other editors are also involved. Furthermore, as much as possible it is best to focus on content.

Next, equating the former lede to the other time article is not really the best argument for changes. However, trying to base it on reliable sources is a better argument. In addition, I think it would be best to discuss changes here before abruptly changing the lede as has happened. That was the idea of starting this discussion in the first place. No discussion has occured.

The lede that was changed is a consensus lede and it was honed over many years work. The first senetence along with the first paragraph are the best introduction for this article. The lede right now seems to place the artilcle in too philosophical domain. This is not a philosophy article. Also, the wording is nebulous and would force us to argue about precise definitions such as conciousness and existence. Right now I think this lede needs to be taken off the article and I am inclined to do so. I am sorry to say that this does not work as well as the other lede. The other lede is an operational definition acceptable in the sciences and ordinary life. Philosophy on the other hand may not gel with the general reader. It may sound good but what does it really mean? So, even that discussion may be too involved for a general encyclopedia article on Misplaced Pages. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the proposed change

1. Sequence & progress do not have the same meaning, yet progress is wikilinked to sequence.
2. It is a matter of POV to say every increase in time amounts to progress.
3. If sequence is the better link, then it is the better word to use in the defintion. The earlier lede uses the word "sequence" explicitly, so why would we want to remove that?
4. what does "indefinite" mean?
5. What does either "sequence of existence" or "progress of existence" mean?
6. As pointed out in my edit summary, time is not just a component of MANY measurements, nor of VARIOUS measurements. It is a fundamental component of our measuring system, including being part of the definition of the metre
7. As pointed out in my edit summary, rates of change of conscious experience/feelings are rarely, if ever, quantified numerically. Can you identify a single one that is?

I do not see how the edit summary

This is not the article Time in physics. This is about "time" as is generally and commonly understood by people who are not necessarily physicists. Depicting time in the lede from the POV of physicists is not NPOV.

has anything to do with the changes proposed. The examples given are indeed from physics, but they are simply a "such as". There is nothing in the article body about quantifying any "rate of change of conscious experience" (nor is it discussed anywhere at all, that I am aware of). There are measurements involving temporality in biology (such as heart rate) and in economics too, but we do not need to mention all of them in the first paragraph.

We can sequence events without thinking of time as a quantity and without measurements , hence Time is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events is 1> meandering and 2>not comprehensive.

In accord with WP:BRD, I am restoring the earlier, long-standing (about 4 years) start of the article at least until there is some discussion here about why any other start is preferable. There are many definitions in the refs, but few of the cited ones focus on any "progress of existence and events", and no case has yet been made to lead with that one--JimWae (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

At the moment the proposed lede does not appear to be an improvement over the long-standing lede. Also, as I said before and as Jim Wae has (now) pointed out, much of the wording is nebulous and it does not accurately match the cited sources. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

IP 71.169.187.182, I think all that you mentioned below is covered in this article already. This is a general article that covers the relevant disciplines and is therefore sufficiently fufilling its function. And this article provides links to other articles which have more information. So even more is in these articles. I am sure that anything you come with is already covered. Why reinvent the wheel? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Restore format

• I had to restore the format of this section to its proper sequence. Comments by Anonymous IP were interspersed throughout this section. Instead the IP's comments are as follows: ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Quoting half of the lede change isn't so transparent either.

Fine. The previous lede was in error from both omission and was non-NPOV. It is not congruent to the primary definitions in the common English dictionary nor the common understanding of time for a general reader.

What is needed is an article about Time that is not Time in physics nor Time in philosophy nor Time in metrology nor some other limited or specialized POV.

The three leading English language dictionaries is not sufficiently reliable?

Not at all impressive. Especially given the references you have available

Do you understand why the Dewey decimal system put philosophy in the first (100) section? Initially, and ultimately, everything is philosophy. That's why they call them Ph.D.s. Now, we don't want the article to look like it came out of a textbook in either a philosophy or physics class, but if it comes out of the textbook of the everyday life of the general reader, it's going to look like elementary philosophy. And it should before the discussion of the topic gets more esoteric and specialized for a particular discipline

It's not at all nebulous. But specific, relating to the dichotomy of the notion of time within and without the experience of humans (or the aliens from the planet Zog that want to know what humans call "time" is). "Within" is experiential and is about consciousness and qualia, "without" is the material or physical notion. The "t" that goes into x(t). And that "t" is something we measure and we do that to relate it to the "t" we experience, but with more stability and precision.

And you expect that "time is what clocks measure" will gel? I find it hard to understand why this POV definition (that sounds good to experimental physicists that don't want to be bothered with existential or philosophical notions, just how they're gonna count them Cesium-133 cycles of radiation) gels better for the general reader than do the dictionary definitions (that are not physics or science glossaries).

We can go through it word-by-word and I can point to the usage of the word or equivalent in the dictionary sources. What you did is only present one side of it. Time is more than about measurement or any human attempt to quantify it (because it exist before and outside of any measurement system), but it is also about measurement and the human experience. The lede needs to be about both. Otherwise it is nakedly POV.

There is a component to each word that has common meaning. That of ordering in sets.

Progression as in progressing reading a book or playing music from beginning to end. Progressing doesn't mean "getting better". In that sense, "progressing" can sometimes be "regressing".

Bump it to sequence, if you like, but for the general reader, they will get the idea much more directly with the word "progress" (through time).

On one side (13.7 bn years ago) it might not be indefinite, but on the other end it is, to the best of our knowledge. We don't know and we doubt that there's a Big crunch so for any moment that you can point to in the future, there is a moment that comes after it.

They're wikilinked. You (and the general reader) can check it. Sequential. Ordered set. All times come before some other times and after others

But what the other Steve (Stevertigo) keeps pointing out and what you seem to be consistently missing is that time existed long before there was a metre or there were measuring systems will continue to exist long after there is anyone around with measuring systems. Measuring systems are an extension to the experiential notion of time. There is a legit notion of time in that category, but time also transcends that, in the common understanding of it. So that's why there is both the notion of time in the straight physical sense and another notion of it as a part of the life experience of beings (human or other terrestrial or extra-terrestrial). So we experience the passage of time and the duration of events and measure these quantities of time with these things we call "clocks", but time exists outside of and transcends that notion.

Uh, how many tennis balls I'm serving you per second? How many dashed lines of the highway you're passing in about a second? Just because you're not counting, doesn't mean that you are not experiencing a rate quantitatively. You can tell when the rate doubles. Even though you're not counting, the rate of change of a sound waveform is quantitatively experienced as pitch. And the correct lede definition did not say "numerical". "Numerical" is not the same meaning as "quantitative".

Saying "time is what clocks measure" and nothing else, is nothing more than time in physics.

It's erroneous. Your "definition" completely ignores the primary definition given in the three leading English dictionaries. That makes it suspect to begin with. It's so heavily biased from the POV of experimental physicists, that any notion of NPOV is silly. Your criticisms failed to refute it. It's a crappy lede, and you need to re-evaluate what you think is the consensus, because it's a horribly non-NPOV lede definition that is not supported by the primary definitions of the English dictionary. There is no good reason for you or any editors to be satisfied with that. 71.169.187.182 (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• There really is no need to break up other's comments. That type of editing is disruptive -- just letting you know. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the lede definition is to present a concept in simpler terms, not to use convoluted & vague language such as "indefinite.. progress of existence and events" and then have to unpack it by saying "we do not mean progress in the ordinary meaning" and "indefinite" is to be construed as 'indefinitely' or 'indefinite', or maybe we do not need it at all".

The proposed lede depends on presuming readers will interpret "indefinite... progress of existence and events" as carrying some vague/unclear elements of time, accomplishing ** little more than saying "Time is time (you know what that means, don't you?)"

What purpose is served in distinguishing material reality from conscious experience (note red-links of those words themselves) if the only examples are tennis balls per second and dotted lines per second - both of which are usually construed as part of both realms and neither requires anything particularly human (or even living)? Why introduce a dichotomy when there are still no examples of quantified rates of change applicable only to one of the "realms". What advantage is there to introducing "material reality" as some separate (ultra-real?) realm from human experience - especially when it (so far) matters not at all in understanding "time"?

I do have an alternative wording that includes SOME of the language including "continuum" and "irreversible" which I have been working on.--JimWae (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, please discuss here rather than edit warring.--JimWae (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Whether time "exists" separate from measurement is at issue & it would be POV to say it does. The present lede does not say time does "exist" apart from measurement and does not say it does NOT exist apart from measurement. Instead, per WP:NPOV, it points to the issue. This IS and has been consensus lede for 4 yrs +--JimWae (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Because of the anonymous IP's edits the discussion was unreadable, now it is readable. The anonymous IP created mess of that section of the talk page. This person's mess had to be fixed. Also, the anon IP's action appears to be an attempt to hi-jack and dominate the discussion and the article. Also the propoed lede by the anonymous IP is vaguely worded and is not really based on reliable sources. The standing lede is accurate and clear. Also, the anonymous IP has refused to engage in discussion other than the previous shotgun spray responses and unilaterly decided to change the lede again. Furthermore, up to this point most of this person's arguments are without merit. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The IP's main argument is that the "consensus" lead (which apparently has less of a consensus than you think) restricts the concept of time too narrowly to treat its aspect as "part fo a measurement system". This narrow definition is not supported in those general works on the topic of time that I have been able to find. Everyone is allowed to make "unilateral" bold changes (provided that one engages in discussion if reverted) and everyone has the right to have their arguments treated with respect when offered with respect - rather than simply rejected as "without merit" (based on what?). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

First, trying to make issue out of the fact that I chose only the first sentence to begin the discussion. It is not a good idea to further edit a person's entry on an article's talk page, which is what happened. I was talking about the first sentence. The anonymous IP instead tried to decide what I meant and added more to that. If the second or third sentence is to be brought into the discussion then do so without editng someone elses entry.

Second, the behavior of adding responses line by line for about 20 lines between another editor and I and breaking up our paragraphs to do so does not allow for clear perspective on what is being said. Also, sorry but I don't have the time to answer line by line responses.

Third, we don't have a definition for conciousness, existence, and other such philosphical terms that everyone or most everyone can agree on. I will try to ferret other such wording that was used. Also saying "every increase in time amounts to progress," is not clear, but it is not actually true. I have to ask "progress in what context?" However, I am sure this wording needs to be changed somehow.

Fourth "progress of existence" does not have a clear anchor - is that the progress of my existence?. Even sequence of existence is hard to pin down. I think I will have more later. Thanks for asking an a appropriate manner. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the sources or definitions quoted by the anon IP above you will see they are related to counting more than anything else. I am guessing this is behind the present lede. Also you will see that only one mentions "existence" but that is also related to counting. In addition, if we were to go with the definitions that have the most weight --then existence does not have the most weight - it is only one word combined with counting. So to emphasize "existence" in the lede then that is undue weight. Also I don't see anything about concious or conciousness. In other words, the anonymous IPs lede puts together wording in way that does not reflect what the sources say and that he/she is citing. I already pointed this out above, but this person has chosen to ignore this and instead go on a tear about unrelated issues, which were caused by this person in the first place. The issue is not the re-formatting of responses in proper order. But this person has brought this up on my talk page and JimWae's talk page - as if this were the real issue. This was followed by reverting the lede, but without further discussion. JimWae has responded to this person. This person's response has been to remove a long standing lede-- not further discussion. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP is obviously new to wikipedia - that means that you should gently help him/her acquire the optimal editing habits, and that you should show extra willingness to try to understand the points he/she is trying to make, not that you should dismiss his/her arguments out of hand because they are not well formed wikisyntax.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you make a good point here. I will have to "take this onboard" and look at my editing style. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"consensus" lead

The "consensus" lead reinserted by Steve Quinn seems to have some severe flaws - among them an overreliance on defining time as part of physical measurement, rather than as a phenomena in its own right (most of the sources about the concept Time clearly do not adopt this exclusively physical definition of time). If this is consensus then consensus has to change to reflect a wider array of sources about the topic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for opening up this discussion as I requested in the edit history ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To suggest that there is a "consensus" in an article that has more than a dozen edits a month for many months seems to show a preference for one particular edit over against all the others. Please provide some reason for reverting my referenced material other than just that it isn't "consensus". Is it wrong? Is it better than the version we had? This is what we should be discussing, not just whether or not it agrees with a nonexistant "consensus". Rick Norwood (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

All I was trying to say was that we should open it for discussion before making abrupt changes. The lede that has been with this article has worked really well. At the same time I did not agree with some of your wording. I will have to add that later. Also, I don't understand why Rick just came in seemingly out of the blue and changed the lede? What is up with that? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Everyone can change the lead out of the blue - thats how wikipedia works. You reverted, and now your supposed to argue why his changes werten't adequate. Just pointing to "consensus" is not helpful. Consensus changes when it is challenged. Now lets discuss how to improve the lead. I think there was good parts to Rick's lead - the use of Callender's book for example - Callender has written several books about the general concept of time, and he seems to incorporate both philosophy and physics. It seems like a very good tertiary source to use for a general definition (I think we should generally avoid dictionary definitions and use definitions in tertiary sources written by experts on the topic (often encyclopedia definitions are good that way)). I didn't think the inclusion of St. Augustine was necessary since he basically just said he didn't know. But apparently many books about time use this quote as an example of the difficulty of defining time. The current definition is entirely inadequate, it is circular in that it describes time as part of a system of measurement of ...time. That is nonsensical - time is a obviously physical force that predates and goes before the system of physical measurement. Time did not appear when people started measuring stuff it was there already. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

First I request that one of you restore Rick's lede to be followed by a discussion of what I (and maybe others) don't agree with. If the present lede is better than Rick's lede or some other lede then let's find out. Are you guys up for the challenge ? So please, I feel that it is only fair to restore Rick's lede. I think you both make good points here. It is good to discuss matters with rational people. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I Don't think we need to restore it - that might need to unnecessary editwars. We can tweak it here on the talkpage before introducing a new lead to the article. I'll copy Rick's lead to the talkpage so we can work on it here. Thanks for your forthcoming attitude. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

OK great and agreed. I just want to hit on somwthing Maunus just wrote. I think time didn't exist until we invented it for ourselves and began to measure it. I don't see how time can exist without human beings saying that time exists. That may sound anthromophoric, but ... If humans did not exist then there would be no one on the planet that is aware of time - hence it would not exist. IMHO and maybe I could find something somewhere that says this (maybe) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That is an odd and counterintuitive argument since if time didn't exist to begin with humans couldn't have beconme aware of it. And also because by extension anything else we profess to study that is before the advent of humans (such as the Big Bang, Dinosaurs, or stars that we can observe but which no longer exist) can also not be said to exist. It is basically just the "if a tree falls in the woods" argument. It also begs the question whetehr not other lifeforms necessarily experience the world in time. You would certainly need a very good source to introduce such a definiton i would say.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

New Definition Workshop

Rick Norwood's proposal:

Time is both the subjective experience that sensations follow one another in sequence and the objective measurement performed by clocks and other devices. It is common to all human experience and is the subject of both philosophical speculation and scientific study. On the philosophical question, St. Augustine wrote, "What is time. If no one asks me, I know. But if I wanted to explain it to one who asks me, I plainly do not know."

Maunus' opinion:

Pros: 1. Introduces the question of subjectivity and sequentiality, 2. Shows that the question of a definition is controversial and that even good minds of the past have pondered this.

Cons: 1. Gives too much weight on the subjective experience by placing it first. 2. Doesn't mention the physical force/concept of time as the thing that is being subjectively felt and objectively measured. 3. Gives too much weight to St. Augustine who people likes to make out as some sort of expert on everything from language to life, to time, to existence, to God etc. - but who just was a medieval monk who happened to formulate important questions in nice language, but who was neither the first to think about these things nor the one to formulate tenable solutions to them.

Suggestions: Look at the ways in which Callender defines time in his books - does he define it as subjective experience and obvjective measurement or as something that has an independent physical existence? Look at other prominent books on the topic such as Charles M. Sherover. 2001. The Human Experience of Time: The Development of Its Philosophic Meaning. Northwestern University Press. -Katinka Ridderbos. 2002. Time. Cambridge University Press - Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The Structure of Time: Language, Meaning, and Temporal Cognition. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003 - Huw Price. 1997. Time's Arrow & Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. Oxford University Press - Eva T. H. Brann. 1999. What, then, is time? Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Rick Norwood's proposal: I appreciate the discussion of my proposed first paragraph, but let's include all of it. I did not replace the scientific view with the philosophic view, but rather included both:

Time is both the subjective experience that sensations follow one another in sequence and the objective measurement performed by clocks and other devices. It is common to all human experience and is the subject of both philosophical speculation and scientific study. On the philosophical question, St. Augustine wrote, "What is time. If no one asks me, I know. But if I wanted to explain it to one who asks me, I plainly do not know." In science, the standard unit of measurement of time is the second, one of the fundamental units in the metric system, a unit whose origin can be traced back to ancient Mesopotamia, where the day was divided into 24 hours, the hour into 60 minutes, and the minute into 60 seconds, but the modern unit has a more precise scientific definition.

Response to Maunus: 1) I put the subjective idea of time ahead of the objective idea because it came first. People experienced time before they measured it. 2) To mention that time is both subjective and objective is certainly to suggest that it is both. 3) St. Augustine is quoted not for his own sake, but because he is the starting point for the discussion of time by many later philosophers. My view of writing for Misplaced Pages is: begin at the beginning, and go on till you come to the end: then stop. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I would place the beginning before either experience or measurement - since the existence of something that can be experienced and measured is intuitively apriori. I respect the question of whether anything exists before we become aware of it, but I think it is too esoteric a point for the lead of an article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Rick I noticed that Yeah, you included both views. I must say that first sentence seems to be really good. I am still working on the rest of it. Also, I agree -- let's include all of it. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this subject tends to be controversial. However, some of this is explained throughout the four paragraphs in the lede - no matter this lede or some other. I think this helps to attenuate the original research on the subject. Moving on -- I think placing the subjective experience first is the best way to relate to the reader. It seems that everyone can relate to a subjective experience of time -- even it is a pre-human force of nature. The experience does seem to be subjective. It is only when I think of time beyond myself that I might see something more. For example I can understand that there is space-time. Hence, there must be some sources that discuss this subjective expereince -- and it seems that Callendar is one of them based on Rick's entry.

I appreciate Mannus' take on St. Francis. However, I don't want to take away his place as a possible voice to express human understanding. Mving on -- I agree that a subject such as time existing before we became aware of it is too esoteric a point for the lead of an article.

Also, for the record I think that "time as part of a measuring system" would also be approprite for the lede. How else are we to know one thing happened after another in a physical sense? How else are to determine causality in a physical system? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Question for Maunus - How would you go about placing "the beginning" before either experience or measurement? It is certainly worth looking at your view on this matter ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I would look at how reliable tertiary sources written by experts on time (chronologists?) do it. Or alternatively i would look at how articles about other physical forces/concepts approach the topic. E.g. space, universe, energy, mass.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a good suggestion. On another note - for the lede I think we could leave out the quote from St.Francis and the blurb about Mesopotemia. Both of these seem to dilute the paragraph. I like what you have about the second as an appliable unit. I wonder if we need to say more about physical systems. JimWae has pointed out that (in essence) "time" and "meauring system" do not exist apart form each other. Hopefully this statement is not too strong. However, it does make sense to me. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree regarding St. Augustine and the mesopotamians - they could go in a history section. I don't take Jim Wae's word for the necessity of measuring systems for the existence of time. It would require a very good source to establish that that is the mainstream view.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I worked a bit on a blend that goes something like:

Time is both the experience that events have duration, can be sequenced, and have intervals between them, and also is the quantity with which the intervals and durations of events are measured, typically using a clock.

However, is time really to be identified with an experience? Do reliable tertiary sources predominantly define time as an experience? ... or as a sensation?--JimWae (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I still think that this suffers from circularity or begging the question - if there is experience or sensation or measurement then what is being measured? You somehow have to tackle the issue of whether time has independent existence.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree my "blend" (and what it is blending) suffers, as explained above. However, we cannot decide in our article whether time has independent existence, we can only remark on the issue - which the 3rd paragraph of the lede has done for years. I must reiterate that the 4-yr consensus 1st sentence does not say that time is ONLY a measurment, it is silent on that - in accord with "less is better" it gives a minimum def of time--JimWae (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to decide it - we let the sources decide.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources are not all of one opinion. We cannot decide which source is "correct".--JimWae (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems that I am discovering from sources that it may be difficult to say that time is an apriori experience or sensation backed up by sources. Also, I can say that time is subjective for me, but what exactly do I mean by that? It seems the only way I "experience" time is that a duration has occured. And it may be that the only way I know that duration has occured is through my movement from point A to point B or movement around me, or looking at my watch. Of course longer durations and intervals can be marked by the sun rising and setting, and so on.

Take a look atThe Experience and Perception of Time. This seems to show that our perception of time as something occuring is actually a combination of short term memory, awareness of the movement of objects, and intervals and durations. There may not be any empirical knowledge or proof that time is a sensation or experience. It certainly has been posited but it has not been nailed down. It is looking like the past is a phenomenom of memory. If may use one quote from this, not to sum up but to show a present state of this subject, "Indeed, it is interesting to note how many philosophers have taken the view that, despite appearances, time, or some aspect of time, is unreal."

Finally, I think that most of Rick's sources, that were externally linked in the lede, support the view that time is a "system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects," (that may somehow sound familiar - h-m-m-m). In particular Rick's link to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosphy. In fact these two sources are echoed in the present lede. And please note these are scholarly works of "philosophy". Comments? Discussion? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds generally good to me, with the slight modification (echoing my earlier comments below) that a system of time is a system used to sequence events, compare durations and intervals, rates of change and motion, etc... while time itself is the sequence of events, the durations and intervals, the change and motion; or that along which events are sequenced, which durations and intervals span, and across which change and motion occur. What I am generally trying to get across is that the map is not the territory, and we should not conflate a measure of time or a system of measuring time for time itself by definition (but without ruling out positions which say there is nothing but the measurement, either, i.e. positions which say there is no territory, we just make up maps for our convenience). --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to comment that the version in progress at the article right now sounds absolutely horrible. It's like there is no lede, we just begin with a sentence about something to do with time, as though mid-thought. A lede needs to begin with something like "Time is...", even if what follows that is some variant on "difficult to define uncontroversially" (though preferably something at least a little more substantial than that). --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As off-the-cuff as it was when I first suggested it, I'm starting to think that something like "Time is that which durations and intervals span, across which change and motion occur, and along which events are sequenced from past, through present, to future." would work well. It is a bit circular, I admit, but very indirectly so; it related the concept of time to a lot of other closely related concepts, even if those other related concepts can't quite be defined without eventual reference back to time. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's dreadful & in several places clearly wrong in explaining the two main positions. Also having philosophers do no more than "speculate", while scientists "study" is a false dichotomy. Using a quote in which "feel" is in scare quotes as a source for time being an experience is not even good cherry-picking. Try this: Time is a dimension in which events can be sequenced, in which the durations of events and the intervals between them can be quantified, and over which changes can be measured.--JimWae (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty good with that, but the stickler for neutrality in me thinks that "dimension" may give bias to eternalism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not see anything in "dimension" that implies persistence or reversibility.--JimWae (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Retro

The retroactive first sentence says: "Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events.." - According to this definition, time is a "part" of a "measuring system." Does this "measuring system" have a name? Does it have an article? Certainly a concept of which time is a fundamental part must have a name, and likely an article. What is its name?

Is there a problem with describing time as a physical phenomenon? After all that is what it is. For example, it is considered a fundamental component in the concept of spacetime, itself a fundamental concept in most of physics. Physics has priority. -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Physics doesn't have priority, sources have priority. And "afterall that is what it is" is not an argument.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine, sources in physics have priority, over a physical concept. And "after all that is what it is" is indeed not an argument, its a reiteration. In this context its not inapt, after all some here don't appear to grasp that time is physical. -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes but time is not just a physical concept. Sources about time have priority over the definition of time. So present a source about time which says that that is what time is - then we'll be making progress. No amount of reiterations will make it possible to insert your opinion into the text. Only sources that support it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur. This article must remain neutral to considerations of time as a concept in physics, philosophy, religion, and any common or lay understanding of it as well. In areas that its definition is contentious, such as philosophy and religion, we must also maintain neutrality between the different contentious definitions; and if there is anything to discuss of a common or lay understanding (and that's a big if), we must make sure not to privilege any of these contentious definitions as definitively "the common sense one", but rather back up and qualify any claim as according to some source, such-and-such is the most commonly accepted notion of time. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

My only real objection to the lede at it currently stands is the "part of a measuring system" phrase; something otherwise very much like what stands now, reworded without that phrase, would be fine by me. Something like "Time is a sequencing of events, and a measure of the duration of those events and the degree of their separation." That definitely needs work, but the gist I'm aiming for is: time is whatever clocks measure, it is not the act of measuring itself, or some technique or system for conducting such acts of measurements. The way it's worded right now, it sounds like the latter, and I can see why people would object to that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Time is a real phenomenon, meaning it is a part of reality. All real things conform to physical laws, known or unknown, hence time is a topic firmly within the domain of physics. Granted, time is not yet fully explained in physics, but our most profound insights about time do come from physics. Philosophy and religion have perhaps inspired some of these insights, and we of course should report such insights here, but reality and all that it contains are physical in nature, hence physics (ie. sources in physics) takes priority.

That's not to say the opening sentences should be technical, in fact I agree that the intro should be general, and talk generally about the concept as we currently understand it. Thats why the dictionaries are important - they talk about what words mean as we currently use them, even if our understanding of such things may be yet undeveloped. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Historical context for this debate

I don't intend to participate in this discussion; however, I'll dredge up a bit of context in the hopes that it can move forward rather than treading old ground:

• Most recent extended debate on the topic (2010): Talk:Time/Archive 5#RFC on "Time is a... process", Talk:Time/Archive 5#Continuum in which events occur, Talk:Time/Archive 5#Introduction, take 2, Talk:Time/Archive 5#Events in the lead, Talk:Time/Archive 5#The Lead, yet again
• Earlier 2010 material: Talk:Time/Archive 4#Nonce introduction, Talk:Time/Archive 4#Lede
• Less recent extended debate on the topic (2008): Talk:Time/Archive 4#Changes to lead & other text, Talk:Time/Archive 4#Moderate modification of lead/lede - Jan 28

I respectfully suggest that before the current debate goes too much farther, it'd be a good idea to write a brief summary in this thread of what the main points of discussion were the last few times around. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Christopher thanks for doing this. These certainly give us a point of reference. Maybe we can avoid repeating the past. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

My best advice? Plan to hold a proper RFC on what the focus of the Time article should be (vs what's already at Time in physics, and what could go in a hypothetical Time in religion and philosophy article). It'll take you a little while to agree on how to properly phrase the RFC question or questions, but it'll be time well-spent. The past debates have been largely the same group of people (with a little bit of turnover, but not much). More eyes, and (hopefully) a clear mandate for what should be in the article, would help a lot. From there, deciding on what the lede should contain is straightforward. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I just want the protest the hypothetical lumping of philosophical and religious views together in this comment. Philosophical discussion of time has much closer connections to scientific discussion of time than it does religious discussion of time. Perhaps three articles might be called for: Time (philosophy), Time (religion), and Time (physics) ("in..." is not standard naming convention for discipline-specific forks of a subject); or if there's not enough material to fill three such articles, just discussing the physical, philosophical, and religious aspects of time separately in this article would be fine. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that "Time in Religion" is a subject we want to discuss in this article. I only included the St. Augustine quote because other authors do, and they included the quote to show the difficulty of defining time, not to discuss theology. It seems to me that we have more-or-less a consensus that the first paragraph should mention philosophy and science, and that we're essentially discussing exactly how that should be worded. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There are already two articles that appear to cover philosophical aspects of time: Eternalism (philosophy of time) and Philosophy of space and time. There are also a Wiki-Categories entitled Philosophy of time and Temporal logic. ----- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To Christopher Thomas, note that the most recent discussion about this subject is still on this page at the section #The intro, where Rursus Dixit raised the point that the lede at that time, what I referred to as the "retro" lede above, contains an egregious fallacy. Rursus and I managed to be convincing, and Jim Wae himself chose to amend with the lede with a more general introductory sentence, which I applauded and others appeared to be satisfied with. Thats the more recent history, and its relevant. Regards,-Stevertigo (t | c) 04:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a general agreement that the current lead is not good, and several people have expressed approval of my rewrite, either in whole or in part, so I'm going to restore it. Please, if you don't like it, instead of reverting it, try to improve it. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to make more than one change at a time (except for getting rid of that stray slash ref) but should the lead really say "Time is what clocks measure." three times. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

TO REPEAT: I worked a bit on a blend that goes something like:

Time is both the experience that events have duration, can be sequenced, and have intervals between them, and also is the quantity with which the intervals and durations of events are measured, typically using a clock.

However, is time really to be identified with an experience? Do reliable tertiary sources predominantly define time as an experience? ... or as a sensation? I am travelling and have little opportunity to talk here, but also putting long quotes from other sources in the body of the lede, while not including their content in the ledes own words, is not the way to write an encyclopedia. People do NOT agree the lede (which has been there 4-years AND is quoted in at least one scholarly work) is BAD, they are talking about improving what is there. I do like the direction in the "map is not the territory" comment. Meanwhile, I am reverting per WP:BOLD.--JimWae (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Jim, since you haven't reverted yet, as I write this, please instead of reverting put your own version up. Revert wars don't get anywhere. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD applies here, and is the way to avoid revert wars. Significant objections have been raised about your edit, and have not been responded to. They should be addressed BEFORE improvements to your version are re-applied. Please revert yourself.--JimWae (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There have also been objections to the old lead, in particular to the idea that time is "part" of something. The main objection to my lead is that some people don't like the St. Augustine quote. Others do. I have no problem with someone who doesn't like it taking it out. I have no problem with you putting your sentence, which is quite good, in. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That does not justify discarding all the text about events, durations, intervals & change. Another way to deal with the issues being raised, is to return to the version of more than 4 yrs ago, the one that resembled the present 3rd paragraph "Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide scholars"--JimWae (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, sensations are events too, but starting with sensations rather than events in general is taking a phenomenological POV. Most importantly, and this is already the THIRD time I have had to say this to you about your version, there is no sourcing for "Time is an experience about sensations".--JimWae (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

My intent was not to discard stuff. Since you seem reluctant to add your own version, I'll see if I can combine our two versions effectively. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

FOURTH time: where is the source for the empiricist POV that "Time is an experience..." --JimWae (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, This page is where new revisions need to be worked on & collaborations & compromises proposed - not on the article page itself--JimWae (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." To need a reference for your own statement that "time is an experience" seems like asking for a reference that eyes are for seeing, but I'll find one, and add it. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

1>BRD is the way to avoid edit wars, and ignoring it is, at least, impolite. 2>VERIFY is policy, and replacing sourced text with unsourced text is more than impolite. 3>From the article: "Immanuel Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, described time as an a priori intuition that allows us (together with the other a priori intuition, space) to comprehend sense experience." - not an experience in itself--JimWae (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have provided the refernce you requested. Kant's distinction, between what we "experience" and what we "comprehend", is too technical for the lead. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

NO, 1>That source supports "Time is an imagining we inject into experience", not "time IS an experience". It more nearly supports the Kantian view. 2>Time is PART OF space-time, PART OF the way we structure the world, and PART OF the system of measurement we use for events, their durations, the intervals, and changes. By saying what time is PART OF, we avoid the temptation to think we have arrived at some complete definition of time.--JimWae (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Rick, I think that placing your lede in the article is space is premature at this time. I stated some objections to this lede in the above three paragraphs of my last entry. I pointed out that so far sources do not tend to back up that time is a subjective experience or that time is a "sense" (like hearing or smelling). I also wrote that "sources seems to show that our perception of time as something occuring is actually a combination of short term memory, awareness of the movement of objects, and intervals and durations. There may not be any empirical knowledge or proof that time is a sensation or experience." Also, another editor responded that he liked the version I mentioned with a caveat. In other words, this is not clear support for your version. If you review all the responses you will see that we have not reached an agreement. In other words, there does not seem to be agreement that time is a sensation or experience. Rather it may be that time is a helpful organizing principle. And this may be because human beings faced that fact that marking time, knowledge of cycles and seasons. and knowing its movements was equated wth survival n the past. For example, to know when winter is coming or when a herd of animals that provide food will come through seems to be based knowing time, cycles, and seasons -- or marking time. So, I reiterate that placing your lede in the article space (at this time) seems to be premature. Also, please read the three paragraphs that I wrote above. Please revert yourself otherwise it causes concern at this time. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that by saying time is a "part of" communicates that we have not finally achieved an acceptable defintion as if "that's what it is". (That would be a historic moment). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It may well be appropriate to discuss these deep philosophical questions in the body of the article. I don't think the lead is the place to go into questions of the difference between "sense" and "sensation", between "perception" and "awareness". Neither do I think the lead should adopt the unitary view that there is nothing to time but measurement. We have many sources that say, clearly, that time is a difficult concept. Most also agree that time has both subjective and objective components, though a minority view holds that the word "time" means nothing but "what clocks measure", and that time is an illusion (tea time doubly so). The controversy here is similar to the controversy in consciousness and is unlikely ever to be totally settled. It's a hard subject, and all the lead should do is introduce the main views, but not single out one of those views. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've cited a book that makes what seems to me to be a clear and straightforward statement that time has a subjective component. He also includes the St. Augustine quote. He also cites the old version of the lead from Misplaced Pages, but does so not as a reference but as a jumping off point, with the emphasis being on the assertion that time is impossible to define. The author has a lot to say on that subject, but one of the things he has to say is that time has both a measurement component and a subjective component. Please note that I am not in any way trying to say that the subjective component of time is not an illusion -- that's too deep a question for the lead.

Because I am reluctant to delete a reference, I've moved the challenged reference to what I hope is a more suitable place, but if anyone still thinks it is inapropo, I have no objection if they remove it. The second flagged reference is clearly in the wrong place, but again I hesitate to delete any reference, so I'm going to leave it alone for now.

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand it may be that time is quite ordinary. For instance, people use time all day to be on time. Hence, it may be simple to express how we relate time in our ordinary everday lives. And I think that is what the original, long standing, four year lede expresses. In addition, it expresses this very well. I believe it is the next sentence after that one which points out that time is controversial. After that controversy is described in one sentence, and further described in the body of the article. I also wish to add that Misplaced Pages already has philosophy articles on time, so we certainly don't have to worry much about those views that are expressed in those articles. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Vague introduction sentence, Essential questions

The current lede contains an egregious first sentence:

"It is difficult to substantiate that time is actually a sensation or experience."

This is not a real lede sentence for an article. We do not start articles with such vague language. We start articles with definitive statements, of the form " is "

I understand that its not an easy topic to deal with. On the other hand, we use the term everyday in a rather unambiguous way. We don't know exactly what time is, but we know what it means when we use the word.

Since it appears most of us are at a loss for how to proceed, let's start by asking a couple basic but essential questions. First:

Is time a phenomenon?

Second:

Is time physical?

Let's talk about these two points. They will help us clarify our course. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking our personal opinions on the matter, or for a sourced consensus of experts on the matter? Because our personal opinions shouldn't be directly relevant (though if you think sharing them will somehow lead to something somehow productive here, please elaborate), and to the best of my knowledge there is no consensus of the experts in available sources. I'm not even sure there's consensus on what those questions mean, much less what their answers are.

Just for the heck of it and to illustrate that ambiguity of the questions, I'll state what my opinion is, which tracks I think pretty closely with Kant's opinion, for which I could dig up some sourced quote if we don't have one around already. Time is part of the framework of experience, like space, number, (and here I add to Kant) qualia, substance, and causation. As phenomena are inherently experiential (non-experiential things are "noumena" in Kant's terminology), the concept of time is bound up intricately in what it is to be a phenomenon at all (all phenomena occur in time), but isn't really a phenomenon itself. Likewise, as physical things are inherently phenomenal (i.e. experiential, empirical), time is intricately bound up in what it is to be physical at all, but it isn't a physical thing or process itself. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in question is referenced, and most sources agree that the question is both central and controversial. Some sources say that time has a subjective component, others that time is only measurement and nothing else. The lead should express both of these major views. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Pfhorrest, Im asking peoples views because its utterly clear that peoples views are what is occluding progress in this article.

The problem with the experiential view taking priority is that human experience is not the foundation of reality, just as the Earth is not the center of the universe. So to say that "time is part of the framework of experience, like space, number, (and here I add to Kant) qualia, substance, and causation" is to promote a view that nothing is real, nothing has substance, and physics itself is just some vague kind of abstraction. It would seem then that you would have to substantiate why an old philosophical conjecture should take precedence over the most advanced theories in the science of physics.

You wrote: "Likewise, as physical things are inherently phenomenal (i.e. experiential, empirical), time is intricately bound up in what it is to be physical at all, but it isn't a physical thing or process itself. - I think you misunderstand what physics is, and what it means. Physics simply means the study of reality, and all things in it. All real things are physical in some way, and therefore accessible to physical description. If its not real in terms of component particles, then it must be illusion, but even illusions must have some basis in physics. The most interesting idea about time in physics comes about through the holographic principle, which indeed regards all of reality as a kind of projection. But that's far from claiming that human perception is the foundation of the universe. Human perception is the foundation of nothing, except the psychology of the individual. -Stevertigo (t | c) 17:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather than argue about the subject, which is not the purpose of talk pages, I will just say that you are being biased to just one of several possible philosophical interpretations of the same physics. Compare, for example, claiming that the Everett interpretation of quantum physics is philosophical nonsense based on misunderstanding the physics, and asserting instead that the Copenhagen interpretation is correct if you understand the physics; when in fact, both Everett and Copenhagen go beyond what the physics itself says, and add an additional philosophical interpretation on top of it. On a broader scope, you are asserting one philosophy of physics to be correct and another to be incorrect (without any disagreement on the actual physics itself), which is biased and thus not NPOV.

I will also say that you evidently misunderstand the position to claim to disagree with, because many of the things you here attribute to that position ("nothing is real, nothing has substance, and physics itself is just some vague kind of abstraction") I, and I believe Kant as well, would disagree with; and many of the counter-assertions you make ("Physics simply means the study of reality, and all things in it. All real things are physical in some way, and therefore accessible to physical description") I and possibly Kant would agree with. I am very tempted to go into detail about where your misunderstanding stems from, but again, that is not the purpose of a Misplaced Pages talk page. A very short statement of clarification I will offer is this: all of the data is objective and independent of any observer, but our only access to it is subjective empirical observation, and things like space and time are necessary parts of any model we could come up with to structure that objective data we subjectively observe; and nothing about any of that is particular to humans per se, but rather part of sentience in general. I will also offer this bit on Kant: he held that his "transcendental idealism", as it is more frequently called, was equivalent to empirical realism, and that that was opposite the position called equivalently transcendental realism or empirical idealism. You seem to be trying to understand the former viewpoint from within the latter viewpoint and understandably getting anti-realist nonsense out of it.

Lastly, I was not advocating "the experiential view taking priority", I was merely answering your questions for the sake of illuminating the possible ambiguity of it; neither a straight "yes" or "no" answer to either question seems accurate to a Kantian view like mine. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Pfhorrest, both Everett's interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation are physical theories, meaning they both attempt to offer a real picture, and each of them has stood the test of time in their own way. Everett's interpretation is interesting - his insight was simply that particles lead multiple lives. You wrote "I will just say that you are being biased to just one of several possible philosophical interpretations of the same physics. - I am not biased towards one particular view in physics. We should all be biased towards scientific explanations over ancient philosophy which roots itself in matters of observation, perception, and subjectivity. And this remains true even if science does not yet have a full picture of time. Relativity, one of our most profound insights into time, did not come out of philosophy, it came out of physics. What would Kant have thought of relativity?

You wrote: ..all of the data is objective and independent of any observer, but our only access to it is subjective empirical observation. - The foundation of most of physics is not "subjective empirical observation," but mathematics, typically of the rigorous, peer reviewed variety. Hence physics is not subjective, its objective, its not empirical, its intuitive, its not observation, its conjecture and then experiment. You wrote: ..and things like space and time are necessary parts of any model we could come up with to structure that objective data we subjectively observe.. - Well thats the point, time is a real phenomenon and therefore "part of any model" regardless of any issues of subjectivity or perception. In fact, according to the holographic model, its space, not time that's the illusion. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The point about Everett and Copenhagen is that the mathematical models of quantum physics and the empirical observations that support those models do not currently decide between them, and furthermore that they do not put anything forward that we could check to decide about them; they take the existing underlying physical theory and add something about "what that means". To accept either is to accept an interpretation of the physics, above and beyond the raw physics itself. Likewise you are doing the same with physics as a whole, saying things about ontology and epistemology and the philosophy of science which the physical theories themselves are silent about; what you are saying is an additional interpretation of what it means for a physical theory to say something and for that something to be correct, etc. You are privileging one interpretation of the scientific results as though they were baked into the results themselves, when they're not. The positions you dismiss as philosophical fluff do not deny anything about the physical theories you are misguidedly trying to defend; they are merely different understandings of the meaning of those theories than the one you seem to think is so obviously correct that to question it is to question the science, rather than your interpretation of it.

As to what Kant would have thought of relativity, he probably would have welcomed it as he was generally supportive of the natural sciences and their findings, but that's really speculation. Leibniz -- another philosopher of similar thought, and co-inventor of calculus, as well as the predecessors of symbolic logic, you might note -- would have considered it a vindication of his own position, as his famous arguments with Newton by proxy of Clarke demonstrate. (Newton and Clarke were firm believers in the absoluteness of space as a thing in itself and not just as a relation between objects; Leibniz argued that space was entirely relational, there was no such "thing" as space , and there was no "true" frame of reference, only relative ones. Here's a physicist vs a philosopher for you, and who turned out right there, eh?)

As for what you write about the nature of physics: honestly and no offense intended, you seem hopelessly confused about what basic terms mean here. Are you honestly arguing that physics is not based on empirical observation, that is is entirely an a priori mathematical activity, that physics is intuitive of all things (and how is intuition in any way objective?), and that experiment furthermore somehow doesn't count as empirical observation? And what do you think happens in peer review, a bunch of men in white coats just decide if they agree with the mathematical models or not, and nobody tries to confirm the observations cited in support of that model? I'm not denying the importance of mathematics in physics or the physical sciences in general, but it's not just sitting in an armchair writing equations until you decide you've figured it out; it's empirical observations (such as experiments), mathematically modeling the patterns in those observations, testing those models against more observations (such as with further experiments), revising the models as necessary, and so on.

This is getting really off the topic but I seriously cannot believe what I'm reading here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Progress?

We seem to be finally moving forward. I've simplified the new lead without (I trust) changing its meaning.

There is a major problem in paragraph three that I hope someone with more knowledge of Newton's vs. Liebnitz's views will fix:

"One view holds that time is neither an event nor a thing ... The opposing view is that time ... is neither an event nor a thing."

You see the problem.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Who is "we" in "We seem to be finally moving forward" besides "you"? Your using the article space to try multiple original versions (instead of presenting them here first) seems to have encouraged others to try their own hands at OR --JimWae (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It may well be there is a subjective component to time, but whether that subjectivity is an expperience, sensation or something else has never been settled. Does "It is difficult to substantiate that time is actually a sensation or experience" assert what time ACTUALLY is or is it rhetorical. At the very least (and this in no way endorses that version), it should be IF or "WHETHER" instead of THAT. ""Feel"" (in scare quotes)<> "experience or sensation"--JimWae (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The other source does NOT say we perceive or experience time itself. IT says "In this wide sense , we perceive a variety of temporal aspects of the world." ... NB: "temporal aspects of the world" (such as, particularly, of events). Identifying time WITH an experience is still unsupported by any reference. I believe this is now the SIXTH time I have requested a source for this oversimplified "definition".--JimWae (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with "It is difficult to identify any experience of time itself" BUT starting the article with a difficulty (instead of further down in the lede paragraph) is awkward & unencyclopedic. Why should time not being an empirically observable be the first thing said about it? We do not begin the article about number by saying it is difficult to empirically observe numbers.--JimWae (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, since the version I think moves us forward is not by me, presumably at least one other person agrees. The C class rating (in one case B) suggests the article needs improvement. The endless discussion that goes nowhere encourages me to Be Bold. Your claim that I am indulging in OR is belied by the fact that everything I write is referenced. I have no opinion on this subject. I just want the article to reflect the references. Since the references disagree, I don't see any harm in saying so. I like my first sentence better than the current one, but I'm trying to play nice, instead of rejecting everything anyone tries to do out of hand. I tried putting your first sentence up, but you didn't like that, either. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I expanded the lede sentence for accuracy. However, now it is too long for the lede so I felt it necessary to move it down in the paragraph. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Also doing some tightening up. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we making progress yet? I think we are. I hope editors don't forget about the problem in the third paragraph, mentioned above. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am rather happy with the current version of the first sentence, which reads as of this writing:

Time is used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.

I would still prefer a slight rewording of that, as "time is used" sounds strange to my ear. I would write:

Time is that across which events are sequenced, durations of events and intervals between them are compared, and rates of change such as the motions of objects are quantified.

Or perhaps, slightly longer and redundant but avoiding what I imagine will be contentious use of "that across which" (though I prefer that phrasing to this):

Time is what events are sequenced across, durations of events and intervals between them are compared across, and rates of change such as the motions of objects are quantified across.

Thoughts? --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the construction "time is that across which" implies that time is real, which is a point of contention. But "time is used" has the same implication. The deeper you dig, the deeper hole you find yourself in. The two main points of view in the literature, put very informally, seem to be a) time is like a line. Clocks measure where on the time line we are. b) Clocks give us numbers. Time is what we call those numbers, and has no meaning apart from the numbers given by clocks (and other devices). I'm also bothered by the construction "time is used". Wouldn't it be better to say, "People use time"? Ah, well, back to the sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think "...time is used to..." and "...people use time..." are synonymous phrases. Time is used by people everday. Also, it seems that animals use time such as some animals are noctinural hunters and some are not. But with animals that may be on the level of instinct. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is, animals may respond to cues such as daylight or dusk. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as an item of interest, here is how an Encyclopedia Britannica article on Time begins, "TIME, the general term for the conscious experience of duration; i.e. the occurrence of events in sequence, one after another." Rick Norwood (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Rick, I checked Encylopedia Britannica online and am unable to confirm your interpretation of what this encyclopedia says on time. Rather this article closely agrees with our current introduction. In a way this makes sense because it seems that using a term such as "conscious experience" is employing vague wording and is difficult to pin down. I mean, a whole article could probably written on the various interpretations of "concious expereince". ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Newton paragraph

Thanks, JimWae, for fixing the Newton paragraph. It's very clear, now. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Lede intro

Rick Norwood relayed to us EB's definition of time:

"TIME, the general term for the conscious experience of duration; i.e. the occurrence of events in sequence, one after another."

which I used in crafting a new introductory sentence:

"Time is the name given to an apparent physical phenomenon by which objects in spacetime are transformed and events appear ordered in sequence from the past to the present and on to the future."

I think this is the general direction we want to go in. Note that by using "apparent" and "appear" we deal to some extent with the perceptual, as that appears to have been a concern among some editors. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I really like the last part of this first sentence ("events appear ordered in sequence from the past to the present and on to the future") but I'm still unsure about the neutrality of "phenomenon" (though I can't think of a better term that doesn't suffer similar or other problems), and the circularity of "objects in spacetime are transformed ". I think we really need some generic phrasing along the lines (though more elegant than this) of that time is something (or other) by or according to or along or across (or whatever) which "events appear ordered in sequence from the past to the present and on to the future".

Actually, I kind of like that "according to" phrase. Previous objections to "that along which" were raised against implying temporal realism, but "according to which" would apply just as much to something purely artificial as it would to a real dimension or such.

What do people think of this hybrid of the old first sentence, Steve's new addition, and my earlier suggestion: Time is that according to which durations of events and the intervals between them are compared, rates of change (such as the motions of objects) are quantified, and events are sequenced in order from the past through the present and on to the future.? --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the more convoluted the first sentence becomes, the less clear it is. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Rick, I wrote the following in the above section, but I decided to move this down here to be sure that you see my reply:

I checked Encylopedia Britannica online and am unable to confirm your (Rick's) interpretation of what this encyclopedia says on time. Rather this article closely agrees with our current introduction. In a way this makes sense because it seems that using a term such as "conscious experience" is employing vague wording and is difficult to pin down. I mean, a whole article could probably written on the various interpretations of "concious expereince". ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

My quote was from an older print edition of the Britannica, not the online edition. It was a quote, not an interpretation. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Would editors please refrain from putting unsourced pet theories at the very top of the article. This is the same issue that led to one current editor's 1-yr ban.--JimWae (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I am glad it is OK to just swoop in and place a preferred lede at the tippity top of the article (as the anonymous IP just did). I think it is important to participate in the ongoing discussion - unless one is above that sort of thing. We just spent the last week haggling over, editing, and tweaking the lede - for what? An exercise in mental gymnastics? The current lede contains vague wording, and gives undue weight to the concept of "existence". Even dictionary definitions of that word are vaguely worded. They use other vague terminology to describe existence. Also try to obtain a definitive description from the body of philosophical works on the topic and it isn't possible. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Pfhorrest wrote: "Time is that according to which durations of events and the intervals between them are compared, rates of change (such as the motions of objects) are quantified, and events are sequenced in order from the past through the present and on to the future." - Using phrasing like "..is that according to which.." seems a bit convoluted. Articles typically start off with the form is .. or is a name/term for . "Intervals between them are compared.." is problematic because the concept of "comparison" is abstract, in the same way that any measurement is abstract. We seem to want to stay away from the concept of measurement in the first sentence. "Rates of change.. are quantified" gets to the issue of relativism, but IMHO that's too much information for the lede sentence. You said you like the proposed passage "..events appear ordered..," what don't you like about "time is the name given to an apparent physical phenomenon.." and "..by which objects in spacetime are transformed..."? Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Using phrasing like "..is that according to which.." seems a bit convoluted

I agree, but it seems like any noun we might use is contentious, so I'm trying to avoid saying "Time is a ____ which " and skip somehow to a more elegant version of "Time is something, we're not saying what yet, which ". E.g. instead of "time is a phenomenon which..." or "time is a process which..." or "time is a dimension in which..." or "time is a framework in which..." or "time is a measurement which...", just "time is whatever it is which...". If you have a suggestion for a more elegant phrasing than "Time is that which..." I welcome it; the only other alternatives that come to mind are too conversational in tone, like "Time is something which..."

Articles typically start off with the form is .. or is a name/term for .

This is tangential, but the latter of these is actually a common error and not proper grammar, unless the subject of the article is the literal term or name, or a quote or saying or something. If the subject is not in quote marks, then it is not a name or term for something, nor does it refer to or mean something; it is that thing named/termed/referred to/meant by the word written there without quotes. See use-mention distinction, or my favorite short demonstration: Cats have four legs and no letters, while "cats" has four letters and no legs.

"Intervals between them are compared.." is problematic because the concept of "comparison" is abstract, in the same way that any measurement is abstract. We seem to want to stay away from the concept of measurement in the first sentence.

I haven't seen anyone complain about mentioning measurement, merely about biasing the article in favor of views that time is only a measurement. And what is wrong with abstraction? Time is a pretty abstract concept as is. Would you talk about space without comparisons of distances? Either way, this feature of time is not my own proposal, I merely rephrased an earlier version (from " compare durations of events and intervals between them" to " durations of events and intervals between them are compared".)

"Rates of change.. are quantified" gets to the issue of relativism, but IMHO that's too much information for the lede sentence.

I'm not sure how you see that getting to relativism. Also again not part of my proposal but the earlier version which stood before your edits: I just rephrased " quantify rates of change " to " rates of change are quantified". Though honestly, I would rather write "across which change occurs" and not just talk about quantifying it, but someone above thought that was biased toward a realist POV and so non-neutral.

You said you like the proposed passage "..events appear ordered..," what don't you like about "time is the name given to an apparent physical phenomenon.." and "..by which objects in spacetime are transformed..."?

I don't like "the name given to" for the aforementioned use-mention distinction reason; I don't like "physical phenomenon" because that is contentious between notable views on the subject; and I don't like the "spacetime" because it seems circular (defining time in terms of spacetime; unless you wanted to get technical and specify what makes a dimension timelike vs spacelike and define time in those terms, but as you say I think that's a bit much for the first sentence). If we trimmed those bits out, we'd be down to "Time is that by which objects are transformed", which... I'm not entirely sure what that's even supposed to mean. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Per BRD request

I placed tag on this ariticle because the neutrality of this article is being disputed. This is because, as I wrote in the edit history --- this lede represents a single point of view, as did the pared down lede. This sentence is also contradictory which I already said in a previous edit history today. I request that someone please tell me how this sentence does not represent a single point of view and how this sentence is not contradictory (per BRD). Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on what point of view you think it is biased toward and where it is contradictory? Because I don't see those things at all, so I'm not sure where to begin defending that it's not unless you can clarify your criticism further. --Pfhorrest (talk)

I hope you don't mind but I decided to make this a new section on the talk (see new section title). Also, I would like to aknowledge User:Pfhorrest's good faith efforts by requesting that we follow BRD in this matter (see edit history).

First, with the emphasis on the word "existence" the current lede contains vague wording, and gives undue weight to the concept of "existence". Even dictionary definitions of that word are vaguely worded. They use other vague terminology to describe existence. Also try to obtain a definitive description from the body of philosophical works on the topic and it isn't possible.

Next the second half of this sentence -- "irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future" appears to be redundant because it is covered in the very next paragraph, and perhaps said even more succinctly.

Third - saying "indefinite continued progress or sequence of existence" is a contradictory statement. But I see that you already noticed that word is not supported by the sources. Kudos. What I was saying earlier -- existence on any time scale is the opposite of indefinite. There is a definite beginning and end to existence for everyone. No one, no animal, no plant, and no tree gets to live forever. Rocks erode. Also, in about 2 or 3 billion years this planet will no longer be habitable because of the life-cycle of the sun. So, on any time scale there is a time limit on existence that is definite or finite.

Fourth -- Sorry but even though this sentence may sound good, it appears to be a convulted construction of words. So for these reasons I shortened the lede (see edit history)

Fifth -- saying that "time is" this sentence seems to say that we have nailed the definition of time. The standard 4 year lede does not do that. It makes empirical statements and describes what can be observed. It is an operational definition.

Sixth -- we already have philosophical articles related to "time" on Misplaced Pages so we don't need to worry about covering philosophy in the lede. Please also note that the philosophy is already summed up in part of the four paragraphs of the introduction. Also, these first paragraphs are very different from the Time in physics article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply Steve, and for acknowledging BRD.

First, with the emphasis on the word "existence" the current lede contains vague wording, and gives undue weight to the concept of "existence". Even dictionary definitions of that word are vaguely worded. They use other vague terminology to describe existence. Also try to obtain a definitive description from the body of philosophical works on the topic and it isn't possible.

These issues are true of any topic which has philosophical import. (Note that I am not saying time is exclusively within the domain of philosophy, but that philosophy has notable and relevant things to say about it). Some vagueness is necessary in the ledes of most such subjects, because the first sentence of the lede of an article is supposed to be a definition of the subject of the article, so when definitions are contentious all we can give are what bare bones are not contentious, which is thus necessarily vague. It is best to immediately follow that with an overview of the various disputes to flesh out that vagueness into multiple more precise possibilities, without stating any one as the definition.

Next the second half of this sentence -- "irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future" appears to be redundant because it is covered in the very next paragraph, and perhaps said even more succinctly.

I concede that, and was planning on writing later tonight about a suggested merger of this new first sentence and what is now the second sentence (along with my earlier suggestions regarding that now-second sentence) to eliminate that redundancy. I don't think that warrants a blanket reversion of the whole thing, though.

Third - saying "indefinite continued progress or sequence of existence" is a contradictory statement. But I see that you already noticed that word is not supported by the sources. Kudos. What I was saying earlier -- existence on any time scale is the opposite of indefinite. There is a definite beginning and end to existence for everyone. No one, no animal, no plant, and no tree gets to live forever. Rocks erode. Also, in about 2 or 3 billion years this planet will no longer be habitable because of the life-cycle of the sun. So, on any time scale there is a time limit on existence that is definite or finite.

Ahh, now I see where you're seeing a contradiction (I had no idea what you meant before). However I believe it is based on a misreading, and an unjustified premise. The misreading is that the sentence claims that the existence of some specific things is indefinite; rather, it claims the progress or sequence of various things existing is indefinite, though the various things in that progress or sequence come and go. This is the root of a common quantification fallacy: "at every time there is at least one thing which exists" ≠ "there is at least one thing which exists at every time". However, that aside, the denial of even the latter calls for some justification: who says nothing lasts forever? By our current understanding energy, information, and many other conserved quantities are considered to exist indefinitely. Either way though, it would as be biased for the article to state in its own voice that some things (or the progression of things) do last forever, as it would so state the negation thereof, and the sources don't say "indefinite" anywhere so lets strike that word and move on.

Fourth -- Sorry but even though this sentence may sound good, it appears to be a convulted construction of words. So for these reasons I shortened the lede (see edit history)

I don't see what is convoluted about it. Can you be more specific?

Fifth -- saying that "time is" this sentence seems to say that we have nailed the definition of time. The standard 4 year lede does not do that. It makes empirical statements and describes what can be observed. It is an operational definition.

See above about how ledes are supposed to begin with definitions, but that on contentious topics we have to keep those definitions from being too specific, to maintain NPOV. The article should begin with "Time is...", but we have to be very careful about what we put immediately after that, precisely to avoid suggesting that there is more consensus ("we've nailed the definition") than there really is.

::Sixth -- we already have philosophical articles related to "time" on Misplaced Pages so we don't need to worry about covering philosophy in the lede. Please also note that the philosophy is already summed up in part of the four paragraphs of the introduction. Also, these first paragraphs are very different from the Time in physics article.

This article is neither entirely philosophical nor physical in scope, so while it touches on both, the lede needs to respect both. You could just as well say that we already have Time in physics so there's no need to worry about covering physics in the lede here.

The anon IP's edits draw on dictionary definitions, which seems like a good place to start for a broad and general definition without getting too deep into more specific definitions from physics or philosophy. I don't think it is perfect as it stands, but it is a good addition that needs to be integrated into the existing text (along with other suggestions under discussion here on the talk page), not reverted entirely. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Pfhorrest, I am impressed with all of your responses here. It seems that you are well versed in your knowledge areas. I really had no idea. Anyway, I will get back to you later. In the meantime go ahead and edit as you see fit. In other words, if this discussion isn't progressing right away - don't let it stop you. I'll be back eventually. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. I didn't get a chance to talk about my suggested integration last night, something came up with a friend, but I'll try to get to that tonight. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we having fun yet?

It seems to me that the lead is getting worse, not better, with no consensus in sight, and that some of the people on this talk page are getting just a wee bit testy. Please avoid personal remarks and personal opinions, and compare and contrast reliable sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

-- Thanks for the good thoughts, Rick-- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me we already have plenty of references, with quotations, and that all that is needed is for someone to paraphrase what the major references say. I'd be willing to try it. I'd be willing to support anyone else who tried it. But I hesitate to try, there have been so many reverts. Maybe it will be better just to wait until things settle down. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are the three primary definitions of time in 3 prominent English language dictionaries:

American Heritage Dictionary

also thefreedictionary.com

1a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

1b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration:a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.

1c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval:ran the course in a time just under four minutes.

1d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes:checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 AM.

1e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned:solar time.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1a. the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration

1b. a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

Oxford English Dictionary (from Compact OED © 1971)

1. A limited stretch or space of continued existence, as the interval between two successive events or acts, or the period through which an action, condition, or state continues.

This is being used, by me, as an authoritative source so that this is simply no one's particular POV. Being that these are general dictionaries, the only POV that you can accuse these definitions as having is the "English language" POV. AH and OED live on opposite sides of the pond and MW is an old standard.

Now there are two grosser POVs to represent, and of one of these POVs, there are two sub-POVs to consider:

Time as phenomenon like space or spacetime or cosmos or consciousness or God or some "big idea" like that.

Time as a quantity of measurement like length or mass or electric charge or temperature or some "operational definition" like that.

Of the operational or measurement POV, there is another split. Measurement with respect to physical systems (more objective) and measurement with respect to experience of a human or some other conscious being. The reason that these are two sides of the same coin is that all clocks or rulers or voltmeters are are extensions of our senses. We gauge how big a bug is or another person or a building or a mountain is, with respect to how big it appears alongside us. We have an experiential measure of this quantity without a meter stick. Similarly we have an experiential measure of time without external clocks. But both our experience of this measurement or our usage of a measuring device (a clock) is acting on the same quantity. It's just that our bare-handed biological, experiential measure might not be as tight as the one using a Cs clock.

'Time as phenomenon is a perspective that is both differentiated from the Time as measurement perspective and solidly supported by the English language dictionaries. Leaving it out of the lede is not NPOV. In addition, it is more fundamental. During the first million years of the existence of the Universe there were certainly no sentient beings around to be experiencing and measuring time, but time existed. There were physical processes going on that had quantitative relationships with each other and with time. There was an x(t) and there was a t, and no one was around measuring it. Let's not get into any stupid Tree-falling-in-the-forest-with-no-one-around-to-hear-it,-does-it-make-a-sound? baloney. Of course it did. Time has been around a lot earlier than there had been anyone in the Universe.

The lede right now seems to place the article in too philosophical domain. That's your opinion, Steve Quinn, but you are mistaken.

This is not a philosophy article. Steve is also mistaken here. While it is not about philosophy as a scholarly exercise, there is a reason why the Dewey decimal system begins with philosophy as the "100s" section and why engineering profs and physics and mathematics and sociology and humanities or literature terminal degrees are all Ph.D. Everything is about philosophy.

The other lede is an operational definition acceptable in the sciences and ordinary life. This is a perfect example of crappy thinking. Of POV thinking. Steve is saying that something that is works in the sciences is also does in ordinary life. "Operational definition" is clearly from the POV of science, and if you take that far enough, from the POV of experimental science. It's a POV and certainly not the only POV and not a neutral POV. It is a POV of a subset of the human experience. That is why it comes in secondary.

Someone else said (but I can't find it) that this should not be about what "time" means to academics but what it commonly means to ordinary people. I fully agree with that. No lede definition of time that does not have something about time occurring in an apparently irreversible direction from the past through the present to the future is not about how the average Joe thinks about time. The average Joe thinks about what has happened in his past, what is happening now, and what he might expect to happen in the future. The dictionaries see this and to leave it out is not NPOV.

Time is about the existence of things, about us and other things in the Universe. The OED supports that. Time is apparently unidirectional as we (and anything that is not an antiparticle) commonly experiences it. In addition, it's single-dimensional (unlike space) so, the common understanding of time is that time progresses in one direction. One event happens after another in an ordered sequence that can be placed on the real number line. Just like "greater than" > and "less than" < have meaning with real numbers, "earlier" or "previous" and "later" or "subsequent" have comparable meaning with respect to time.

Some complained about indefinite. Time as this fundamental phenomenon is considered to be indefinite, in our common ordinary experience, in both directions; for every moment of time you identify, there is a moment that precedes it and another moment that succeeds this given moment. But we know now that some 13.7 billion years ago that might not be true regarding the Big bang. Present thinking is that time and space both had origin with the big bang, so if you define that event as t=0, then there may very well be no moments with negative t. So there's a definite limit of time in the past direction. But there is no known limit in the future direction. For every moment, from the BB onward, there is a moment that follows. That is, by definition, indefinite. It has to be bounded on both sides for "indefinite" not to apply.

So, in two sentences, all three major POVs are comprehensively (not exhaustively) introduced. We have Time as phenomenon, the fundamental definition, first with "past", "present" and "future". This can be footnoted for a cutey and simple definition from John Wheeler: "Time is what prevents everything from happening at once." (along with "Space is what prevents everything from happening to me.") Then we have Time as measurement or the "operational definition", both regarding the physical systems and regarding the human (or sentient) experience (we can measure the duration of something or we can guess how long it was from our experiencing it). And we can footnote that with the statement from Einstein that "Time is what clocks measure." Although not as comprehensive, both cited statements express, in a nutshell, what time is thought of fundamentally and what time is as a measurement. They're good.

Also, rate of change of a quantity is directly related to and a consequence of time. It is simply the reciprocal of time, 1/t, or frequency. It belongs in the measurement sentence. It is often how time is measured or experienced.

The more fundamental POV of time is that of Wheeler and the more operational POV is that of Einstein. We can get the key concepts down with two concise sentences:

Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. Time is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience.

Now, I don't have infinite time to work on this, so I am asking that you justify how any other two-sentence lede is as or more comprehensive or concise as this. Or more accurate. If you fire out a phalanx of nit-picks, I will answer each one clearly and sequentially. Steve and Jim object to answering each question immediately after the question. It's a silly objection and inefficient alternative, which means I have to copy their question and put it in green and italics, and then answer it, but that's what we'll do. In return, I ask that assertions of opinion are not couched as statement of fact which is mostly what Steve Quinn does. Steve, you can avoid that pitfall by preceding opinions with "I think..." or "I believe..." or "I prefer...". Please let's do this important article some justice and not fart around. Oh, BTW, I've been editing Misplaced Pages since 2004, not as long as User:Stevertigo. I know my way around here. Please don't patronize me. And thanks for your observations, Pfhorrest. 70.109.182.232 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

70.109.182.232 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/in+time
2. Craig Callendar, Introducing Time, Icon Books, 2010, ISBN-13: 978-1848311206
3. St. Augustine, Confessions, Simon & Brown, 2012, ISBN-13: 978-1613823262
4. Craig Callendar, Introducing Time, Icon Books, 2010, ISBN-13: 978-1848311206
5. St. Augustine, Confessions, Simon & Brown, 2012, ISBN-13: 978-1613823262

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Time articles
• Top-importance Time articles
• C-Class physics articles
• Top-importance physics articles
• C-Class physics articles of Top-importance
• C-Class Astronomy articles
• Top-importance Astronomy articles
• C-Class Astronomy articles of Top-importance
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class metaphysics articles
• High-importance metaphysics articles
• Metaphysics task force articles
• C-Class philosophy of science articles
• High-importance philosophy of science articles
• Philosophy of science task force articles
• C-Class mathematics articles
• Top-priority mathematics articles
• C-Class psychology articles
• Top-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles