Change and Time (562 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.16 on 7 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Ryan (View user info) at 2003-08-08 09:21:54 EDT
I've been mulling this about for awhile now. It all started when I was reading a certain
philosopher stating that cause and effect are not really what they seem to be. I think
it was Hume or Locke, but I can't remember for sure and I have lost interest in the
original idea. Anyhow, this is what tarted me on the topic anyways. The idea is that cause
and effect are merely what we observe and is not necessarily cause and effect but are
rather events that seem to happen one after the other and because of our perception we view
them as cause and effect. That's the jist of it anyway, but that is not what concerns me here.
I just wanted you all to know where I was coming from with this topic.
That was a little jumbled...sorry.
I'm going to need to make a few assumptions and definitions here to begin with. They're not
that hard to accept.
1. Time exists and can be measured in units.
2. There -is- a relationship between cause and effect, beyond that which we percieve.
3. Change is defined as anything which does not remain the same. It can occur in objects as
well as events.
OK, so what I am trying to figure out is if change is a function of time or vice versa. Which
one precedes the other? My actual discussion will be rather quick now. (I'm not really sure
about this.)
If time is a function of change, we can measure time by what has changed. This makes time
subjective to how frequent change is and also makes our smallest unit of time quite
useful. The smallest unit of time for us would then be the smallest period of change as well.
Something like an electron moving. Or light (photons). We could modify our units of time
based on how much was going on at any given period in history. Hmmm, I'm not so sure I like
the complications that could develop from this however. Change is required for time to exist
in this model.
Now the other option is that change is a function of time. In this model time is required for
change to occur. I like this idea better already. Bear with me here, I'm hashing this out as
I go. In this model, our relationship between cause and effect become important. Time must pass
for change to occur and therefore the events occuring simultaneously would not produce a cause
and effect relationship, but we would still percieve them to. Whereas, some 'effect' that
occurs just after a 'cause' would be able to produce a relationship through change and time
that would not necessarily be dependent on our perception.
Well, that's all I can really get away with for now. Other people are coming to work and I
need to start working.
User Reviews
Submitted by Arsenal (user info) at 2003-08-09 01:58:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
"Wrong. Time does not exist and those units you measure it with are a result of your perception."
What?!? Time does not exisit? I agree that the units are a result of your perception, just as are all units, but how can time not exist?
Correct me if I am wrong, preferably with a source, but is time not "simply" another dimension, such as space.
As far as the orginal post goes I don't think that you can call either one a function of the other. Without any change in the universe there would be no time. Without time there could be no change.
Submitted by Slovin (user info) at 2003-08-09 01:07:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
1. Time exists and can be measured in units.
---
Wrong. Time does not exist and those units you measure it with are a result of your perception.
I hate to pidgeonhole like this, but it's true.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-08-08 15:26:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
"Time must pass for change to occur and therefore the events occuring simultaneously would not produce a cause and effect relationship, but we would still percieve them to."
Would we now? Give me an example, then.
"Whereas, some 'effect' that occurs just after a 'cause' would be able to produce a relationship through change and time that would not necessarily be dependent on our perception."
Yeah, well, thanks for stating the obvious.
Submitted by HeavensWalls (user info) at 2003-08-08 11:07:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Exsitence is a thing to be experienced, not examined.
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
Submitted by PopNFresh (user info) at 2003-08-08 10:12:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Interesting
Submitted by jimbobjoe (user info) at 2003-08-08 09:42:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
mmmmmmm, no.
Submitted by lowsodiummonkey (user info) at 2003-08-08 09:27:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Soem of your answers are here:
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=1060103562441222927