Studies in human behavior show that we can become strongly influenced by others demonstrating our need to belong. This may seem acceptable depending on the modeled behaviors or attitudes we observe, but on closer inspection, deeper implications on the kinds of messages and perspectives we pick up and internalize from others are evident.
Do we subconsciously conceal our true natures with the incentive for acceptance into other groups? And if the values differ, did we subdue our previously learned values because of societal pressures, or because our current psychological and/or physical needs are not being met? Was it a process of subjugating our once valued ideals to align with the pressures of the social contexts we placed upon ourselves if indeed the values are not in alignment? If we turn to the finding in the Stanford Prison Experiment, it may shed some light onto these questions.
Stanford University psychology professor Philip Zimbardo in 1971 conducts a psychological experiment to test the hypothesis that the personality traits of prisoners and guards are the chief cause of abusive behavior between them. In the experiment, Zimbardo selects twenty-four male students to participate in a 7–14 day prison simulation to take roles as prisoners or guards. They receive $15 per day. The experiment is conducted in a mock prison located in the basement of Jordan Hall, the University Psychology building. The students who are guards become abusive, as does Zimbardo himself. Two students who play the role of prisoners quit the experiment early, and the entire experiment is abruptly stopped after only six days. The U.S. Office of Naval Research provides the funding for the experiment and U.S. Navy and the Marine Corps both show interest in this investigation into the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners. The implications of these experiments show how multitudes of human interactions can impose and influence peoples behavior given specific sets of circumstances established in social settings.
If we look at the countless examples of how children rebel against their family mores and go off on another direction when they become teens, or if we look at the cultural phenomena of how the rise of punk rock was reactionary to the classic rock era, then we may draw conclusions upon the underlying psychological factors that impel the changes in the newer generations?
The question I often ask is when these changes of expression occur, are people consciously aware of their motivation? Is it because there is something missing and not fulfilling the people willing to change the course of their psychological values? This is of course a very broad stroke to make in assuming that these values are different. Perhaps it is in the expressions of the person that differ, but not the underlying values of those expressions? Perhaps they can be mutually exclusive and co-exist? The point of contention is really the cases of people who are not artistically seeking new directions, but rather those who change their values to become a part of a divergent group. The direction is clearly different and easily distinguishable for others to see in many cases that involve dramatic physical changes.
This scenario would include someone who dramatically changes their appearance to fit into another group of newly formed friendships. Tattoo’s, implants and piercings for those who are decorating their bodies with ornamentation that in many instances their parents would not approve if done in extreme measures might be the example to study.
Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), also termed body dysmorphia or dysmorphic syndrome, is a mental disorder via obsessive preoccupation with a perceived defect in one’s own appearance, viewed as so severe as to warrant exceptional measures to hide or fix it. If the flaw is actual, its importance is severely exaggerated. BDD is categorized in the obsessive–compulsive spectrum.
Usually starting during adolescence, BDD is a fairly common mental disorder, affects men and women roughly equally, and may occur in some 1% to 2% of the population.In fear of being thought vain, persons experiencing BDD tend to keep the preoccupation secret, and BDD is severely underdiagnosed.Severely impairing quality of life, BDD can lead to social isolation and involves especially high rates of suicidal ideation. Clearly the cases below would indicate that these people have no secrets to the expression of their selves.
But more interesting still are those who do not consciously know they are changing their values. Those who form new friendships, become involved with new organizations of people personally and professionally sharing something maybe familiar, yet some forms of differentiation are not openly shared. The individual in them withholds overtly shown behaviors and personal information as to not disrupt the status quo from within a group. For the average person, this may seem to be subtle and is the primary purpose for this post. Questioning the very natures of those that are seeking some kind of alternative experience begs the question about wanting to belong. The changing process they undergo during this transition is something worth investigating. Do their values change during this transition?
But of course there is a pendulum swing that goes all the way to the other vantage points; those that are out of the ordinary. Like those seeking alternative lifestyles as depicted in the Stanley Kubrick’s 1999 film Eyes Wide Shut. This film goes deeper than just those just looking out for new ways to spice up their relationships, or new ways to express themselves sexually.
Not only is this film about a mysterious, perhaps murderous, secret society, it is drenched in allusions to the New World Order cabal. Occult symbols like the pentagram can be found throughout the film, as well as multiple references to rainbows and looking glasses… Eyes Wide Shut, the phrase itself, is a calling card among secret societies, meaning ‘my eyes are shut to your misdeeds, brother.’ This anonymity is required of the participants, otherwise the society’s wealthy elite would be revealed. For as one character in the film says, “If I told you their names I don’t think you’d sleep so well.”
[Kubrick] died only days after submitting the first cut of the film to Warner Brothers. At this point, the film was commandeered by Warner Brothers and heavily edited… Is it possible that this scene and others originally contained images and/or dialogue that illuminated the New World Order in a way that was dangerous to their privacy? Was Kubrick trying to out the secret society, or at least toy with their heads?
It’s clear that Eyes Wide Shut is about a secret society, though the film is up for interpretation about whether they are truly dangerous or simply wealthy, bored New Yorker’s looking for a good time. Whatever the true nature of this film expresses, it is only another expression of how we humans organize and sometimes put ourselves at risk when we pursue choices outside of our comfort zones. Choices that sometimes lead us down a path that will challenge our values, and possibly change the way we see ourselves. We may indeed compromise some trusted values only to replace them with a result that we may not have bargained for, or we may discover something that provided us with new insights on just who we really are.
But to know just who we really are, one must first ask those questions like…”What am I willing to stand for? What is it that I value?” When our friendships have lasted for many years with some people, I think the answer for the sustainability in the friendship is because we identify with them despite the years that have gone by. But we can also see that some of our friendships do not stand this test of time. Does this mean we have somehow become disenchanted from them because we either lack a frequency in contact, or maybe it is the distance between us, or possibly it is because of a difference in our values expressed? For me the interest lies in knowing if people indeed are aware of when these changes occur and how they represent them to other people in their lives.
Thus the seeds of charade begins to play out in their lives if they find that they still want to associate with some people, but find that the similarities become less and less as time goes by. The painful examples are evident in all the unhappily married couples that have grown apart, but co-exist to maintain the illusion of a family whether it be for the children’s sake, or for a financial decision that takes precedent over their happiness. To give the facade any legitimacy they must express charades of candor to others in their lives, and tragically they must express this quietly to themselves; a constant reminder of the state of being they find themselves attached and enslaved to.
How well our politicians subvert the populace and play this charade is all to evident in human history when they promise one thing publicly, but silently act differently with their powers. The reason politics has earned a bad name is precisely due to the secretive behaviors our elected public figures enact. But to me the tragedy is still in the realm of our friendships, and relationships on the interpersonal level of communication we see in day-to-day life. When was the last time you gave yourself a mirror check? What say you?
Are we authentic? Or are we acting? Do we see the world as a stage?
When the motivation and inspiration to become a better person stems from the attention you covet from another person, and if indeed you feel good while performing said tasks to improve yourself, is it better at times you start this endeavor (such as physical fitness goals, developing musical skills, being well dressed, etc.), for social advancements or for personal reasons based on your beliefs? There still lies the question, do you not do it for yourself, or for the sake of its intrinsic value? Is there a significant difference between social values and personal values, albeit they are not mutually exclusive? I understand that having a coach, parent, spiritual leader, or someone with an expertise should be sought out to meet some of these goals, but my interest is in the differences between the distinction I have noted above.
The ends justify the means for some people. My notion is the consideration on the root underlying motivation that we act upon before we engage in some activity may indeed lead to an emerging ego defense rather than a purer direct resolve. Splitting hairs some may agree, but there may be something to be said about a deep seated self-doubt that motivates someone and not an honest cognizant assessment. Even if the result has a similar outcome, the internal motivator that wins out sill be subject to a harsher scrutiny if there is any dissonance in these decisions that come back to haunt us later. Example, If I choose to go through the appearance of attending church for social approval as opposed to an internal ambition to better oneself and unify with a religious experience, can that have implications? If you look at all the hypocrites who do not seek such instruction for their own betterment in their heart, and instead go because it is socially sanctioned, there seems to be a disconnect to the reason for going. They therefore are giving the appearance to others that they are attending because of an internal drive and maybe not because of the external drive that prompts them to be present.
Why is having another person gain your approval more important than having a reconciliation with self-approval? Are they both inconsistent ideas, goals, with different values assigned to them? Maybe because they have different rewards attached to the prospect of having someone like you for you in comparison to your own internal reward by doing what you like to do?
Does this possibly imply that a self-approval is in need of reevaluation, and that possibly the need for others in our lives is more powerful than our own appraisals because we have doubt enough to seek other opinions about such matters? If we invest in the time to show others strengths we may be working on, their observations and interest somehow have gained a higher priority than our own judgement because we have not yet learned the ability to truly calculate a balance in our self-worth enough that we seek outside validation?
I remember when I began to work on my physique by working out in the gym. I had for some time wanted to develop my body to show a positive healthy shape that met my idea of looking fit. After some time in my investment of a steady routine I was able to see and feel the physical benefits of such activity as I discovered the psychological benefits apart from the physical benefits which were also a complementary bonus. But if I were to check my motivating factors at the age I began this routine, I think that it was for reasons that many young people begin such endeavors, to look better to attract other people into their lives. We are attracted to others that like the same activities, we are attracted to those who share the same goals and aspects of our perception of what is attractive, and possibly it is simply that we have similar traits, but the underlying motivation for many still begs the question do you work out because you wanted to attract more people by adjusting your physical appearance to do so as part of your strategy? This may seem to be a matter of intention!
I have always wanted to develop my inner sanctum, my personality and disposition to the world, my soul or ethos that guided me through life because I felt it was extremely important for one to express themselves authentically and meet the world without any depreciating factors of perception. To have a beautiful soul, to be someone of value, to not carry the pitfalls of what our ego, and human frailties often prevent us from seeing in the world. I have personally seen how people with unhealthy approaches to the world have dispositions that are very unfavorable and how they can distort the experience of their life and those around them.
I have grown up with the notion that by going to school and doing well, our opportunities will avail themselves to us depending upon our efforts and achievements. What I did not see growing up is the concerted effort to have much emphasis placed upon our approach in educational curriculum’s to include ethics, and just how important ethical conduct truly matters. I have experienced this in my career paths through-out my life for the last 35 years in the business world, and my own personal experiences in the entirety of my life. Even more shocking is the everyday conduct outside of the business world; our personal relationships where some of the most poignant kinds of human conduct are detected and are astoundingly distressing if taking notice of these results. I work with the public everyday and see countless cases of poor conduct; ego centered, self-absorbed, and selfish behaviors that make me wonder about the futility of this conduct.
Somehow we have attended to areas in our lives that focus on our ego wants above the needs of others. The possession of ego is a universal principle that we must all negotiate within ourselves and with the projection of other egos upon us.
My feeling is that though I am as guilty as most other people on my root causes for engaging in activities come largely from social acceptance, I can clearly distinguish at times we must dig deeper and look to a purer form of inspiration because it just may be that we are living under false pretenses that could have problematic reverberations.
Most days of the year are unremarkable. They begin and they end with no lasting memory made in between. Most days have no impact on the course of a life.
~~(500) Days of Summer
Like the quote above, most days are not all days in a year, a month, or a lifetime. At times there will be moments that are contrary and we find ourselves in a situation we must resolve.
I’m not sure if I totally agree with the statement below. Brilliant movie, but I’m not resigned to say that “everything” is just mere coincidence especially if we are discussing the dynamics in human relationships.
If Tom had learned anything… it was that you can’t ascribe great cosmic significance to a simple earthly event. Coincidence, that’s all anything ever is, nothing more than coincidence… Tom had finally learned, there are no miracles. There’s no such thing as fate, nothing is meant to be. He knew, he was sure of it now.
~~(500) Days of Summer
Given my argument presented here, my suggestion is that we have situations that are more involved than this screenwriters commentary on relationships. I think there is vast differences in our approaches to the world, and that I tend to believe that there is more than just coincidence if living an examined life. If we employ the maxim “Know Thyself”, then one can certainly see my contention for this argument. On the contrary if one is living without examining anything but blind luck, than maybe this screenwriter’s commentary makes more sense. Just a thought!
“You never really learn much from hearing yourself speak.”
― George Clooney
“Often romantic relationships fail because you are trying to get someone to fall in love with the YOU that you never discovered.”
― Shannon L. Alder
“How to get rid of ego as dictator and turn it into messenger and servant and scout, to be in your service, is the trick.”
― Joseph Campbell
“The worst disease which can afflict executives in their work is not, as popularly supposed, alcoholism; it’s egotism.”
― Robert Frost
“oh God! what am I to do if I love nothing but fame and men’s esteem?”
― Leo Tolstoy
“When you are self-conscious you are in trouble. When you are self-conscious you are really showing symptoms that you don’t know who you are. Your very self-consciousness indicates that you have not come home yet.”
“The ego is as you think of yourself. You in relation to all the commitments of your life, as you understand them. The self is the whole range of possibilities that you’ve never even thought of. And you’re stuck with you’re past when you’re stuck with the ego. Because if all you know about yourself is what you found out about yourself, well, that already happened. The self is a whole field of potentialities to come through.”
― Joseph Campbell, The Hero’s Journey: Joseph Campbell on His Life & Work
“Anyone can see that an ass laden with books remains a donkey. A human being laden with the undigested results of a tussle with thoughts and books, however, still passes for wise.”
― Idries Shah, Reflections
To our experience time can be measured on a linear scale such as past, present, and future. But is this really so? If you leave the movement variable out of the equation, Is it not that time lives only in the now, and such any past event is already gone, and any future event is simply speculation that the human mind plays upon itself, since we can only live in the moment, the past we think about only exists in the thoughts we experience now… ironically in the present. We cannot escape our experience of the present, even though the mind continues to play these tricks on us. Memories are only experienced in the now, future speculations are only experienced in the now; so is it just that we are truly only living in the present weather we like it or not, except it or not, realize it or not! It is only that we can change our perception of time, and become lost in our memories, or lost in our potential future that disturbs the basis of how we experience the world. We can become so caught up in routine, that distorts the time judgement mechanism and make us state things like…where has the time gone, time flies, or what did I do with my life?
There was an age when we lived by the stars, the celestial planetary time clock we lived by, but today an artificial time clock using a 24 hour measurement has changed things dramatically from that day forward. Also discovered in the field of the Neurosciences are other sequences of measurement in time such as a biological system of time, (the super cosmetic nucleus; a cluster of brain cells that controls our physiological functions). Other findings include neuro-chemical impulses that keep track of time during events that happen before us in our perception; the human ability to judge the passage of time deeply imbedded within our brains. A cosmic notion of time held by physicists believing in the Big-Bang theory gives us a sense of the age old cosmology discussion held by the ancient philosophers. There are atomic time clocks, quantum physics theories of time, and of course the space-time connection with Einstein’s contributions and our relativity in the equation. It can be asserted that time is a specific motion that we employ to measure all other motions.
After World War I, and the industrial revolution, public time became crucial in the management of our daily lives. Wearing a wrist watch was a feminine association in past eras, before they became a life saving device, in planning and coordinating attacks in WWI per se.
With the study of geriatrics, The secret reward of aging is that we are aware of our mortality, and that we slow down and appreciate life in the moment in the later years of our lives. Respecting the ages of our elders, as well as respecting our place in the scheme of time can be a valuable lesson learned in this fragile world of limited lifespan.
The awareness that time is limited, man has searched for a way to escape time, be liberated from time, or exempt from time simply because of the nature of our mortality and time.
Events (or ‘times’), McTaggart observed, may be characterized in two distinct, but related, ways. On the one hand they can be characterized as past, present or future, normally indicated in natural languages such as English by the verbal inflection of tenses or auxiliary adverbial modifiers. Alternatively events may be described as earlier than, simultaneous with, or later than others. Philosophers are divided as to whether the tensed or tenseless mode of expressing temporal fact is fundamental. Those who (like Arthur Prior) take the tensed notions associated with the past, present and future to be the irreducible foundations of temporality and our conceptions of temporal fact, are called A-theorists (similar to presentists). A-theorists deny that past, present and future are equally real, and maintain that the future is not fixed and determinate like the past. Those who wish to eliminate all talk of past, present and future in favour of a tenseless ordering of events are called B-theorists. B-theorists (such as D.H. Mellor and J.J.C. Smart) believe that the past, the present, and the future are equally real.
The past, the present and the future feature vary differently in deliberation and reflection. We remember the past and anticipate the future, for example, but not vice versa. B-theorists maintain that the fact that we know much less about the future simply reflects an epistemological difference between the future and the past: the future is no less real than the past; we just know less about it (Mellor 1998). A view was held, for example by Quine and Putnam, that physical theories such as special relativity and latterly Quantum mechanics provide the B-theory with compelling support.
A-theorists on the other hand believe that a satisfactory account of time must acknowledge a fundamental metaphysical difference between past, present and future (Prior 2003). The difference between A-theorists and B-theorists is often described as a dispute about temporal passage or ‘becoming’. B-theorists argue that this notion embodies serious confusion about time, while many A-theorists argue that in rejecting temporal ‘becoming’, B-theorists reject time’s most vital and distinctive characteristic. It is common (though not universal) to identify A-theorists’ views with belief in temporal passage.
It is also common (though not universal) for B-theorists to be four-dimensionalists, that is, to believe that objects are extended in time as well as in space and therefore have temporal as well as spatial parts. This is sometimes called a time-slice ontology (Clark, 1978).
The debate between A-theorists and B-theorists is a continuation of a metaphysical dispute reaching back to the ancient Greek philosophers Heraclitus and Parmenides. Parmenides thought that reality is timeless and unchanging. Heraclitus, in contrast, believed that the world is a process of ceaseless change, flux and decay. Reality for Heraclitus is dynamic and ephemeral. Indeed the world is so fleeting, according to Heraclitus, that it is impossible to step twice into the same river. The metaphysical issues that continue to divide A-theorists and B-theorists concern the reality of the past, the reality of the future, and the ontological status of the present.
The B-theory of time is also burdened with heavy philosophical problems. On the B-theory, temporal becoming is an entirely subjective phenomenon, and hence not an objective feature of reality. In the absence of minds, every temporal moment and event simply exists tenselessly; there are no tensed facts; no past, present, or future; nothing comes into existence or happens except in the tenseless sense of existing at certain appointed stations as opposed to others. If the mental phenomenon of temporal becoming is an objective feature of reality, this amounts to a denial of the B-theory of time. If the B-theorist bites the bullet, stating that there is no temporal becoming of mental states, then this flies in the face of experience. Sir Arthur Eddington states “We have direct insight into ‘becoming’ which sweeps aside all symbolic knowledge as on an inferior plane. If I grasp the notion of existence because I myself exist, I grasp the notion of becoming because I myself become. It is the innermost Ego of all that is and becomes.”
Temporal philosopher William Lane Craig explains that the B-Theory suffers the same incoherence as all theories that time is illusory, namely, that an illusion or appearance of becoming involves becoming, so that becoming cannot be mere illusion or appearance. The Buddhist can consistently deny the reality of the physical world, since the illusion of physicality does not entail physicality, but this is not the case with temporal becoming. John Laird writes: “Take the supposed illusion of change. This must mean that something, X, appears to change when in fact it does not change at all. That may be true about X; but how could the illusion occur unless there were change somewhere? If there is no change in X, there must be a change in the deluded mind that contemplates X. The illusion of change is actually a changing illusion. Thus the illusion of change implies the reality of some change. Change, therefore, is invincible in its stubbornness; for no one can deny the appearance of change.”
Depending on our perspective, multiple versions of what we call “Now” does exist simultaneously because of the illusory nature of time-space. The subjective moments of experience in the reality of perception may be simply an illusion based on the laws of physics if thinking of it within this context. The notion of the one-directional observation of time, or the arrow of time is an interesting notion. The laws of physics and the notion of entropy help explain why the arrow of time is better seen in one direction.
Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe—a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time. The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of “container” that events and objects “move through”, nor to any entity that “flows”, but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.
Time is one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in both the International System of Units and International System of Quantities. Time is used to define other quantities—such as velocity—so defining time in terms of such quantities would result in circularity of definition. An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is highly useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. The operational definition leaves aside the question whether there is something called time, apart from the counting activity just mentioned, that flows and that can be measured. Investigations of a single continuum called spacetime bring questions about space into questions about time, questions that have their roots in the works of early students of natural philosophy.
Furthermore, it may be that there is a subjective component to time, but whether or not time itself is “felt”, as a sensation, or is a judgement, is a matter of debate.
Temporal measurement has occupied scientists and technologists, and was a prime motivation in navigation and astronomy. Periodic events and periodic motion have long served as standards for units of time. Examples include the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, the swing of a pendulum, and the beat of a heart. Currently, the international unit of time, the second, is defined in terms of radiation emitted by caesium atoms (see below). Time is also of significant social importance, having economic value (“time is money“) as well as personal value, due to an awareness of the limited time in each day and in human life spans.
Temporal measurement, or chronometry, takes two distinct period forms: the calendar, a mathematical abstraction for calculating extensive periods of time, and the clock, a physical mechanism that counts the ongoing passage of time. In day-to-day life, the clock is consulted for periods less than a day, the calendar, for periods longer than a day. Increasingly, personal electronic devices display both calendars and clocks simultaneously. The number (as on a clock dial or calendar) that marks the occurrence of a specified event as to hour or date is obtained by counting from a fiducial epoch—a central reference point.
Artifacts from the Paleolithic suggest that the moon was used to reckon time as early as 6,000 years ago.Lunar calendars were among the first to appear, either 12 or 13 lunar months (either 354 or 384 days). Without intercalation to add days or months to some years, seasons quickly drift in a calendar based solely on twelve lunar months. Lunisolar calendars have a thirteenth month added to some years to make up for the difference between a full year (now known to be about 365.24 days) and a year of just twelve lunar months. The numbers twelve and thirteen came to feature prominently in many cultures, at least partly due to this relationship of months to years.
in quantum physics, the duration light takes to travel one fermi (10−15m, about the size of a nucleon) in a vacuum: about 3 × 10−24s.
In electronics, the duration for one alternating current power cycle (1/60 or 1/50 of a second).
Also, an informal term for any unspecified short duration.
A large variety of devices has been invented to measure time. The study of these devices is called horology.
An Egyptian device that dates to c.1500 BC, similar in shape to a bent T-square, measured the passage of time from the shadow cast by its crossbar on a nonlinear rule. The T was orientated eastward in the mornings. At noon, the device was turned around so that it could cast its shadow in the evening direction.
A sundial uses a gnomon to cast a shadow on a set of markings calibrated to the hour. The position of the shadow marks the hour in local time.
The most precise timekeeping device of the ancient world was the water clock, or clepsydra, one of which was found in the tomb of Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep I (1525–1504 BC). They could be used to measure the hours even at night, but required manual upkeep to replenish the flow of water. The Ancient Greeks and the people from Chaldea (southeastern Mesopotamia) regularly maintained timekeeping records as an essential part of their astronomical observations. Arab inventors and engineers in particular made improvements on the use of water clocks up to the Middle Ages. In the 11th century, Chinese inventors and engineers invented the first mechanical clocks driven by an escapement mechanism.
The hourglass uses the flow of sand to measure the flow of time. They were used in navigation. Ferdinand Magellan used 18 glasses on each ship for his circumnavigation of the globe (1522). Incense sticks and candles were, and are, commonly used to measure time in temples and churches across the globe. Waterclocks, and later, mechanical clocks, were used to mark the events of the abbeys and monasteries of the Middle Ages. Richard of Wallingford (1292–1336), abbot of St. Alban’s abbey, famously built a mechanical clock as an astronomical orrery about 1330. Great advances in accurate time-keeping were made by Galileo Galilei and especially Christiaan Huygens with the invention of pendulum driven clocks.
The English word clock probably comes from the Middle Dutch word klocke which, in turn, derives from the medieval Latin word clocca, which ultimately derives from Celtic and is cognate with French, Latin, and German words that mean bell. The passage of the hours at sea were marked by bells, and denoted the time (see ship’s bell). The hours were marked by bells in abbeys as well as at sea.
Chip-scale atomic clocks, such as this one unveiled in 2004, are expected to greatly improve GPS location.
Clocks can range from watches, to more exotic varieties such as the Clock of the Long Now. They can be driven by a variety of means, including gravity, springs, and various forms of electrical power, and regulated by a variety of means such as a pendulum.
The most accurate timekeeping devices are atomic clocks, which are accurate to seconds in many millions of years, and are used to calibrate other clocks and timekeeping instruments. Atomic clocks use the spin property of atoms as their basis, and since 1967, the International System of Measurements bases its unit of time, the second, on the properties of caesium atoms. SI defines the second as 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that corresponds to the transition between two electron spin energy levels of the ground state of the 133Cs atom.
In medieval philosophical writings, the atom was a unit of time referred to as the smallest possible division of time. The earliest known occurrence in English is in Byrhtferth‘s Enchiridion (a science text) of 1010–1012, where it was defined as 1/564 of a momentum (1½ minutes), and thus equal to 15/94 of a second. It was used in the computus, the process of calculating the date of Easter.
As of May 2010, the smallest time interval uncertainty in direct measurements is on the order of 12 attoseconds (1.2 × 10−17 seconds), about 3.7 × 1026Planck times.
Definitions and standards
The SI base unit for time is the SIsecond. The International System of Quantities, which incorporates the SI, also defines larger units of time equal to fixed integer multiples of one second (1 s), such as the minute, hour and day. These are not part of the SI, but may be used alongside the SI. Other units of time such as the month and the year are not equal to fixed multiples of 1 s, and instead exhibit significant variations in duration.
The official SI definition of the second is as follows:
The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
At its 1997 meeting, the CIPM affirmed that this definition refers to a caesium atom in its ground state at a temperature of 0 K. Previous to 1967, the second was defined as:
Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) is the basis for modern civil time. Since 1 January 1972, it has been defined to follow TAI with an exact offset of an integer number of seconds, changing only when a leap second is added to keep clock time synchronized with the rotation of the Earth. In TAI and UTC systems, the duration of a second is constant, as it is defined by the unchanging transition period of the caesium atom.
Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) is an older standard, adopted starting with British railways in 1847. Using telescopes instead of atomic clocks, GMT was calibrated to the mean solar time at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich in the UK. Universal Time (UT) is the modern term for the international telescope-based system, adopted to replace “Greenwich Mean Time” in 1928 by the International Astronomical Union. Observations at the Greenwich Observatory itself ceased in 1954, though the location is still used as the basis for the coordinate system. Because the rotational period of Earth is not perfectly constant, the duration of a second would vary if calibrated to a telescope-based standard like GMT or UT—in which a second was defined as a fraction of a day or year. The terms “GMT” and “Greenwich Mean Time” are sometimes used informally to refer to UT or UTC.
The Global Positioning System also broadcasts a very precise time signal worldwide, along with instructions for converting GPS time to UTC.
Earth is split up into a number of time zones. Most time zones are exactly one hour apart, and by convention compute their local time as an offset from UTC or GMT. In many locations these offsets vary twice yearly due to daylight saving time transitions.
These conversions are accurate at the millisecond level for time systems involving earth rotation (UT1 & TT). Conversions between atomic time systems (TAI, GPS, and UTC) are accurate at the microsecond level.
Sidereal time is the measurement of time relative to a distant star (instead of solar time that is relative to the sun). It is used in astronomy to predict when a star will be overhead. Due to the orbit of the earth around the sun a sidereal day is 4 minutes (1/366th) less than a solar day.
Another form of time measurement consists of studying the past. Events in the past can be ordered in a sequence (creating a chronology), and can be put into chronological groups (periodization). One of the most important systems of periodization is the geologic time scale, which is a system of periodizing the events that shaped the Earth and its life. Chronology, periodization, and interpretation of the past are together known as the study of history.
Time-like concepts: terminology
The term “time” is generally used for many closed but different concepts. Speaking exactly, one should distinguish at least between:
– instant as an object – one point on the time axes. Being an object, it has no value;
– time interval as an object – part of the time axes limited by two instants. Being an object, it has no value;
– date as a quantity characterizing time instant. Being a quantity, it has value, say, 2014-04-26T09:42:36,75 in the ISO standard form, or today, 9:42 a.m. in a colloquial form;
– duration as a one of quantities characterizing time interval. Being a quantity, it has value, say, 15 minutes. Other quantities describing a time interval are e.g. dates of its begin and end.
From this point of view, the term “time” can be used either as a shorthand or in general sense. Nevertheless, in an exact text like in definitions, proper term should be chosen.
In the Old Testament book Ecclesiastes, traditionally ascribed to Solomon (970–928 BC), time (as the Hebrew word עדן, זמן `iddan(time) zĕman(season) is often translated) was traditionally regarded as a medium for the passage of predestined events. (Another word, زمان” זמן” zman, was current as meaning time fit for an event, and is used as the modern Arabic, Persian, and Hebrew equivalent to the English word “time”.)
There is an appointed time (zman) for everything. And there is a time (’êth) for every event under heaven–
A time (’êth) to give birth, and a time to die; A time to plant, and a time to uproot what is planted.
A time to kill, and a time to heal; A time to tear down, and a time to build up.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; A time to mourn, and a time to dance.
A time to throw stones, and a time to gather stones; A time to embrace, and a time to shun embracing.
A time to search, and a time to give up as lost; A time to keep, and a time to throw away.
A time to tear apart, and a time to sew together; A time to be silent, and a time to speak.
A time to love, and a time to hate; A time for war, and a time for peace. – Ecclesiastes 3:1–8
Time in Greek mythology
The Greek language denotes two distinct principles, Chronos and Kairos. The former refers to numeric, or chronological, time. The latter, literally “the right or opportune moment”, relates specifically to metaphysical or Divine time. In theology, Kairos is qualitative, as opposed to quantitative.
In Greek mythology, Chronos (Ancient Greek: Χρόνος) is identified as the Personification of Time. His name in Greek means “time” and is alternatively spelled Chronus (Latin spelling) or Khronos. Chronos is usually portrayed as an old, wise man with a long, gray beard, such as “Father Time”. Some English words whose etymological root is khronos/chronos include chronology, chronometer, chronic, anachronism, synchronize, and chronicle.
Two distinct viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time. An opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of actually existing dimension that events and objects “move through”, nor to any entity that “flows”, but that it is instead an intellectual concept (together with space and number) that enables humans to sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that space and time “do not exist in and of themselves, but … are the product of the way we represent things”, because we can know objects only as they appear to us.
In Book 11 of his Confessions, St. Augustine of Hippo ruminates on the nature of time, asking, “What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: if I wish to explain it to one that asketh, I know not.” He begins to define time by what it is not rather than what it is, an approach similar to that taken in other negative definitions. However, Augustine ends up calling time a “distention” of the mind (Confessions 11.26) by which we simultaneously grasp the past in memory, the present by attention, and the future by expectation.
In contrast to ancient Greek philosophers who believed that the universe had an infinite past with no beginning, medieval philosophers and theologians developed the concept of the universe having a finite past with a beginning. This view is shared by Abrahamic faiths as they believe time started by creation, therefore the only thing being infinite is God and everything else, including time, is finite.
Time is not an empirical concept. For neither co-existence nor succession would be perceived by us, if the representation of time did not exist as a foundation a priori. Without this presupposition we could not represent to ourselves that things exist together at one and the same time, or at different times, that is, contemporaneously, or in succession.
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. With Kant, neither space nor time are conceived as substances, but rather both are elements of a systematic mental framework that necessarily structures the experiences of any rational agent, or observing subject. Kant thought of time as a fundamental part of an abstract conceptual framework, together with space and number, within which we sequence events, quantify their duration, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that “flows,” that objects “move through,” or that is a “container” for events. Spatial measurements are used to quantify the extent of and distances between objects, and temporal measurements are used to quantify the durations of and between events. Time was designated by Kant as the purest possible schema of a pure concept or category.
Henri Bergson believed that time was neither a real homogeneous medium nor a mental construct, but possesses what he referred to as Duration. Duration, in Bergson’s view, was creativity and memory as an essential component of reality.
According to Martin Heidegger we do not exist inside time, we are time. Hence, the relationship to the past is a present awareness of having been, which allows the past to exist in the present. The relationship to the future is the state of anticipating a potential possibility, task, or engagement. It is related to the human propensity for caring and being concerned, which causes “being ahead of oneself” when thinking of a pending occurrence. Therefore, this concern for a potential occurrence also allows the future to exist in the present. The present becomes an experience, which is qualitative instead of quantitative. Heidegger seems to think this is the way that a linear relationship with time, or temporal existence, is broken or transcended. We are not stuck in sequential time. We are able to remember the past and project into the future – we have a kind of random access to our representation of temporal existence — we can, in our thoughts, step out of (ecstasis) sequential time.
Time as “unreal”
In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved from his chief work On Truth, held that: “Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron).”Parmenides went further, maintaining that time, motion, and change were illusions, leading to the paradoxes of his follower Zeno. Time as an illusion is also a common theme in Buddhist thought.
These arguments often center around what it means for something to be unreal. Modern physicists generally believe that time is as real as space—though others, such as Julian Barbour in his book The End of Time, argue that quantum equations of the universe take their true form when expressed in the timeless realm containing every possible now or momentary configuration of the universe, called ‘platonia‘ by Barbour. (See also: Eternalism (philosophy of time))
Until Einstein’s profound reinterpretation of the physical concepts associated with time and space, time was considered to be the same everywhere in the universe, with all observers measuring the same time interval for any event. Non-relativistic classical mechanics is based on this Newtonian idea of time.
Einstein, in his special theory of relativity, postulated the constancy and finiteness of the speed of light for all observers. He showed that this postulate, together with a reasonable definition for what it means for two events to be simultaneous, requires that distances appear compressed and time intervals appear lengthened for events associated with objects in motion relative to an inertial observer.
The theory of special relativity finds a convenient formulation in Minkowski spacetime, a mathematical structure that combines three dimensions of space with a single dimension of time. In this formalism, distances in space can be measured by how long light takes to travel that distance, e.g., a light-year is a measure of distance, and a meter is now defined in terms of how far light travels in a certain amount of time. Two events in Minkowski spacetime are separated by an invariant interval, which can be either space-like, light-like, or time-like. Events that are time-like cannot be simultaneous in any frame of reference, there must be a temporal component (and possibly a spatial one) to their separation. Events that are space-like could be simultaneous in some frame of reference, and there is no frame of reference in which they do not have a spatial separation. People travelling at different velocities between two events measure different spatial and temporal separations between the events, but the invariant interval is constant and independent of velocity.
In non-relativistic classical mechanics, Newton’s concept of “relative, apparent, and common time” can be used in the formulation of a prescription for the synchronization of clocks. Events seen by two different observers in motion relative to each other produce a mathematical concept of time that works sufficiently well for describing the everyday phenomena of most people’s experience. In the late nineteenth century, physicists encountered problems with the classical understanding of time, in connection with the behavior of electricity and magnetism. Einstein resolved these problems by invoking a method of synchronizing clocks using the constant, finite speed of light as the maximum signal velocity. This led directly to the result that observers in motion relative to one another measure different elapsed times for the same event.
Two-dimensional space depicted in three-dimensional spacetime. The past and future light cones are absolute, the “present” is a relative concept different for observers in relative motion.
Time has historically been closely related with space, the two together merging into spacetime in Einstein’sspecial relativity and general relativity. According to these theories, the concept of time depends on the spatial reference frame of the observer, and the human perception as well as the measurement by instruments such as clocks are different for observers in relative motion. For example, if a spaceship carrying a clock flies through space at (very nearly) the speed of light, its crew does not notice a change in the speed of time on board their vessel because everything traveling at the same speed slows down at the same rate (including the clock, the crew’s thought processes, and the functions of their bodies). However, to a stationary observer watching the spaceship fly by, the spaceship appears flattened in the direction it is traveling and the clock on board the spaceship appears to move very slowly. On the other hand, the crew on board the spaceship also perceives the observer as slowed down and flattened along the spaceship’s direction of travel, because both are moving at very nearly the speed of light relative to each other. Because the outside universe appears flattened to the spaceship, the crew perceives themselves as quickly traveling between regions of space that (to the stationary observer) are many light years apart. This is reconciled by the fact that the crew’s perception of time is different from the stationary observer’s; what seems like seconds to the crew might be hundreds of years to the stationary observer. In either case, however, causality remains unchanged: the past is the set of events that can send light signals to an entity and the future is the set of events to which an entity can send light signals.
Relativity of simultaneity: Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and occurs later in the red frame.
Einstein showed in his thought experiments that people travelling at different speeds, while agreeing on cause and effect, measure different time separations between events, and can even observe different chronological orderings between non-causally related events. Though these effects are typically minute in the human experience, the effect becomes much more pronounced for objects moving at speeds approaching the speed of light. Many subatomic particles exist for only a fixed fraction of a second in a lab relatively at rest, but some that travel close to the speed of light can be measured to travel farther and survive much longer than expected (a muon is one example). According to the special theory of relativity, in the high-speed particle’s frame of reference, it exists, on the average, for a standard amount of time known as its mean lifetime, and the distance it travels in that time is zero, because its velocity is zero. Relative to a frame of reference at rest, time seems to “slow down” for the particle. Relative to the high-speed particle, distances seem to shorten. Einstein showed how both temporal and spatial dimensions can be altered (or “warped”) by high-speed motion.
Einstein (The Meaning of Relativity): “Two events taking place at the points A and B of a system K are simultaneous if they appear at the same instant when observed from the middle point, M, of the interval AB. Time is then defined as the ensemble of the indications of similar clocks, at rest relatively to K, which register the same simultaneously.”
Einstein wrote in his book, Relativity, that simultaneity is also relative, i.e., two events that appear simultaneous to an observer in a particular inertial reference frame need not be judged as simultaneous by a second observer in a different inertial frame of reference.
Relativistic time versus Newtonian time
Views of spacetime along the world line of a rapidly accelerating observer in a relativistic universe. The events (“dots”) that pass the two diagonal lines in the bottom half of the image (the past light cone of the observer in the origin) are the events visible to the observer.
The animations visualise the different treatments of time in the Newtonian and the relativistic descriptions. At the heart of these differences are the Galilean and Lorentz transformations applicable in the Newtonian and relativistic theories, respectively.
In the figures, the vertical direction indicates time. The horizontal direction indicates distance (only one spatial dimension is taken into account), and the thick dashed curve is the spacetime trajectory (“world line“) of the observer. The small dots indicate specific (past and future) events in spacetime.
The slope of the world line (deviation from being vertical) gives the relative velocity to the observer. Note how in both pictures the view of spacetime changes when the observer accelerates.
In the Newtonian description these changes are such that time is absolute: the movements of the observer do not influence whether an event occurs in the ‘now’ (i.e., whether an event passes the horizontal line through the observer).
However, in the relativistic description the observability of events is absolute: the movements of the observer do not influence whether an event passes the “light cone” of the observer. Notice that with the change from a Newtonian to a relativistic description, the concept of absolute time is no longer applicable: events move up-and-down in the figure depending on the acceleration of the observer.
Time quantization is a hypothetical concept. In the modern established physical theories (the Standard Model of Particles and Interactions and General Relativity) time is not quantized.
Planck time (~ 5.4 × 10−44 seconds) is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. Current established physical theories are believed to fail at this time scale, and many physicists expect that the Planck time might be the smallest unit of time that could ever be measured, even in principle. Tentative physical theories that describe this time scale exist; see for instance loop quantum gravity.
Time and the Big Bang theory
Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. In A Brief History of Time and elsewhere, Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame. Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless. This less-nuanced, but commonly repeated formulation has received criticisms from philosophers such as Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler.
Scientists have come to some agreement on descriptions of events that happened 10−35 seconds after the Big Bang, but generally agree that descriptions about what happened before one Planck time (5 × 10−44 seconds) after the Big Bang are likely to remain pure speculation.
Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang
A graphical representation of the expansion of the universe with the inflationary epoch represented as the dramatic expansion of the metric seen on the left
While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the universe’s history. The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems require the existence of a singularity at the beginning of cosmic time. However, these theorems assume that general relativity is correct, but general relativity must break down before the universe reaches the Planck temperature, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the singularity.
There may also be parts of the universe well beyond what can be observed in principle. If inflation occurred this is likely, for exponential expansion would push large regions of space beyond our observable horizon.
Some proposals, each of which entails untested hypotheses, are:
Models including the Hartle–Hawking boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.
Time travel is the concept of moving backwards or forwards to different points in time, in a manner analogous to moving through space, and different from the normal “flow” of time to an earthbound observer. In this view, all points in time (including future times) “persist” in some way. Time travel has been a plot device in fiction since the 19th century. Traveling backwards in time has never been verified, presents many theoretic problems, and may be an impossibility. Any technological device, whether fictional or hypothetical, that is used to achieve time travel is known as a time machine.
Another solution to the problem of causality-based temporal paradoxes is that such paradoxes cannot arise simply because they have not arisen. As illustrated in numerous works of fiction, free will either ceases to exist in the past or the outcomes of such decisions are predetermined. As such, it would not be possible to enact the grandfather paradox because it is a historical fact that your grandfather was not killed before his child (your parent) was conceived. This view doesn’t simply hold that history is an unchangeable constant, but that any change made by a hypothetical future time traveler would already have happened in his or her past, resulting in the reality that the traveler moves from. More elaboration on this view can be found in the Novikov self-consistency principle.
The specious present refers to the time duration wherein one’s perceptions are considered to be in the present. The experienced present is said to be ‘specious’ in that, unlike the objective present, it is an interval and not a durationless instant. The term specious present was first introduced by the psychologist E.R. Clay, and later developed by William James.
Psychoactive drugs can impair the judgement of time. Stimulants can lead both humans and rats to overestimate time intervals, while depressants can have the opposite effect. The level of activity in the brain of neurotransmitters such as dopamine and norepinephrine may be the reason for this. Such chemicals will either excite or inhibit the firing of neurons in the brain, with a greater firing rate allowing the brain to register the occurrence of more events within a given interval (speed up time) and a decreased firing rate reducing the brain’s capacity to distinguish events occurring within a given interval (slow down time).
Mental chronometry is the use of response time in perceptual-motor tasks to infer the content, duration, and temporal sequencing of cognitive operations.
Development of awareness and understanding of time in children
Children’s expanding cognitive abilities allow them to understand time more clearly. Two and three year olds’ understanding of time is mainly limited to “now and not now.” Five and six year olds can grasp the ideas of past, present, and future. Seven to ten year olds can use clocks and calendars.
Psychologists assert that time seems to go faster with age, but the literature on this age-related perception of time remains controversial. Those who support this notion argue that young people, having more excitatory neurotransmitters, are able to cope with faster external events.
The use of time is an important issue in understanding human behavior, education, and travel behavior. Time use research is a developing field of study. The question concerns how time is allocated across a number of activities (such as time spent at home, at work, shopping, etc.). Time use changes with technology, as the television or the Internet created new opportunities to use time in different ways. However, some aspects of time use are relatively stable over long periods of time, such as the amount of time spent traveling to work, which despite major changes in transport, has been observed to be about 20–30 minutes one-way for a large number of cities over a long period.
Time management is the organization of tasks or events by first estimating how much time a task requires and when it must be completed, and adjusting events that would interfere with its completion so it is done in the appropriate amount of time. Calendars and day planners are common examples of time management tools.
A sequence of events, or series of events, is a sequence of items, facts, events, actions, changes, or procedural steps, arranged in time order (chronological order), often with causality relationships among the items. Because of causality, cause precedes effect, or cause and effect may appear together in a single item, but effect never precedes cause. A sequence of events can be presented in text, tables, charts, or timelines. The description of the items or events may include a timestamp. A sequence of events that includes the time along with place or location information to describe a sequential path may be referred to as a world line.
“Newton did for time what the Greek geometers did for space, idealized it into an exactly measurable dimension.” About Time: Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution, Paul Davies, p. 31, Simon & Schuster, 1996, ISBN 978-0684818221
“Oxford Dictionaries:Time”. Oxford University Press. 2011. Retrieved 18 December 2011. “the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole”
“Webster’s New World College Dictionary”. 2010. Retrieved 9 April 2011. “1.indefinite, unlimited duration in which things are considered as happening in the past, present, or future; every moment there has ever been or ever will be… a system of measuring duration 2.the period between two events or during which something exists, happens, or acts; measured or measurable interval”
“Collins Language.com”. HarperCollins. 2011. Retrieved 18 December 2011. “1. The continuous passage of existence in which events pass from a state of potentiality in the future, through the present, to a state of finality in the past. 2. physics a quantity measuring duration, usually with reference to a periodic process such as the rotation of the earth or the vibration of electromagnetic radiation emitted from certain atoms. In classical mechanics, time is absolute in the sense that the time of an event is independent of the observer. According to the theory of relativity it depends on the observer’s frame of reference. Time is considered as a fourth coordinate required, along with three spatial coordinates, to specify an event.”
“The American Heritage Science Dictionary @dictionary.com”. 2002. Retrieved 9 April 2011. “1. A continuous, measurable quantity in which events occur in a sequence proceeding from the past through the present to the future. 2a. An interval separating two points of this quantity; a duration. 2b. A system or reference frame in which such intervals are measured or such quantities are calculated.”
“Eric Weisstein’s World of Science”. 2007. Retrieved 9 April 2011. “A quantity used to specify the order in which events occurred and measure the amount by which one event preceded or followed another. In special relativity, ct (where c is the speed of light and t is time), plays the role of a fourth dimension.”
“Time”. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth ed.) (Houghton Mifflin Company). 2011. “A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.”
Merriam-Webster Dictionary the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration; a nonspatial continuum which is measured in terms of events that succeed one another from past through present to future
Compact Oxford English Dictionary 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. (1971)
“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”. 2010. Retrieved 9 April 2011. “Time is what clocks measure. We use time to place events in sequence one after the other, and we use time to compare how long events last… Among philosophers of physics, the most popular short answer to the question “What is physical time?” is that it is not a substance or object but rather a special system of relations among instantaneous events. This working definition is offered by Adolf Grünbaum who applies the contemporary mathematical theory of continuity to physical processes, and he says time is a linear continuum of instants and is a distinguished one-dimensional sub-space of four-dimensional spacetime.”
“Dictionary.com Unabridged, based on Random House Dictionary”. 2010. Retrieved 9 April 2011. “1. the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another…. 3. (sometimes initial capital letter) a system or method of measuring or reckoning the passage of time: mean time; apparent time; Greenwich Time. 4. a limited period or interval, as between two successive events: a long time…. 14. a particular or definite point in time, as indicated by a clock: What time is it? … 18. an indefinite, frequently prolonged period or duration in the future: Time will tell if what we have done here today was right.”
Ivey, Donald G.; Hume, J.N.P. (1974). Physics1. Ronald Press. p. 65. “Our operational definition of time is that time is what clocks measure.”
Adam Frank, Cosmology and Culture at the Twilight of the Big Bang, “the time we imagined from the cosmos and the time we imagined into the human experience turn out to be woven so tightly together that we have lost the ability to see each of them for what it is.” p. xv, Free Press, 2011, ISBN 978-1439169599
Official Baseball Rules, 2011 Edition (2011). “Rules 8.03 and 8.04” (Free PDF download). Major League Baseball. Retrieved 7 July 2012. “Rule 8.03 Such preparatory pitches shall not consume more than one minute of time…Rule 8.04 When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds…The 12-second timing starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball and the batter is in the box, alert to the pitcher. The timing stops when the pitcher releases the ball”
“Guinness Book of Baseball World Records”. Guinness World Records, Ltd. Retrieved 7 July 2012. “The record for the fastest time for circling the bases is 13.3 seconds, set by Evar Swanson at Columbus, Ohio in 1932…The greatest reliably recorded speed at which a baseball has been pitched is 100.9 mph by Lynn Nolan Ryan (California Angels) at Anaheim Stadium in California on 20 August 1974.”
Burnham, Douglas : Staffordshire University (2006). “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) Metaphysics – 7. Space, Time, and Indiscernibles”. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 9 April 2011. “First of all, Leibniz finds the idea that space and time might be substances or substance-like absurd (see, for example, “Correspondence with Clarke,” Leibniz’s Fourth Paper, §8ff). In short, an empty space would be a substance with no properties; it will be a substance that even God cannot modify or destroy…. That is, space and time are internal or intrinsic features of the complete concepts of things, not extrinsic…. Leibniz’s view has two major implications. First, there is no absolute location in either space or time; location is always the situation of an object or event relative to other objects and events. Second, space and time are not in themselves real (that is, not substances). Space and time are, rather, ideal. Space and time are just metaphysically illegitimate ways of perceiving certain virtual relations between substances. They are phenomena or, strictly speaking, illusions (although they are illusions that are well-founded upon the internal properties of substances)…. It is sometimes convenient to think of space and time as something “out there,” over and above the entities and their relations to each other, but this convenience must not be confused with reality. Space is nothing but the order of co-existent objects; time nothing but the order of successive events. This is usually called a relational theory of space and time.”
Cummings, Raymond King (1922). The Girl in the Golden Atom. U of Nebraska Press. p. 46. ISBN978-0-8032-6457-1. Retrieved 9 April 2011. Chapter 5. Cummings repeated this sentence in several of his novellas. Sources, such as this one, attribute it to his earlier work, The Time Professor, in 1921. Before taking book form, several of Cummings’s stories appeared serialized in magazines. The first eight chapters of his The Girl in the Golden Atomappeared in All-Story Magazine on 15 March 1919. In the novel version the quote about time appears in Chapter V.
Rynasiewicz, Robert : Johns Hopkins University (12 August 2004). “Newton’s Views on Space, Time, and Motion”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved 5 February 2012. “Newton did not regard space and time as genuine substances (as are, paradigmatically, bodies and minds), but rather as real entities with their own manner of existence as necessitated by God’s existence… To paraphrase: Absolute, true, and mathematical time, from its own nature, passes equably without relation to anything external, and thus without reference to any change or way of measuring of time (e.g., the hour, day, month, or year).”
Markosian, Ned. “Time”. In Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2002 Edition). Retrieved 23 September 2011. “The opposing view, normally referred to either as “Platonism with Respect to Time” or as “Absolutism with Respect to Time,” has been defended by Plato, Newton, and others. On this view, time is like an empty container into which events may be placed; but it is a container that exists independently of whether or not anything is placed in it.”
Mattey, G. J. : UC Davis (22 January 1997). “Critique of Pure Reason, Lecture notes: Philosophy 175 UC Davis”. Retrieved 9 April 2011. “What is correct in the Leibnizian view was its anti-metaphysical stance. Space and time do not exist in and of themselves, but in some sense are the product of the way we represent things. The[y] are ideal, though not in the sense in which Leibniz thought they are ideal (figments of the imagination). The ideality of space is its mind-dependence: it is only a condition of sensibility…. Kant concluded “absolute space is not an object of outer sensation; it is rather a fundamental concept which first of all makes possible all such outer sensation.”…Much of the argumentation pertaining to space is applicable, mutatis mutandis, to time, so I will not rehearse the arguments. As space is the form of outer intuition, so time is the form of inner intuition…. Kant claimed that time is real, it is “the real form of inner intuition.””
McCormick, Matt : California State University, Sacramento (2006). “Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) Metaphysics: 4. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism”. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 9 April 2011. “Time, Kant argues, is also necessary as a form or condition of our intuitions of objects. The idea of time itself cannot be gathered from experience because succession and simultaneity of objects, the phenomena that would indicate the passage of time, would be impossible to represent if we did not already possess the capacity to represent objects in time…. Another way to put the point is to say that the fact that the mind of the knower makes the a priori contribution does not mean that space and time or the categories are mere figments of the imagination. Kant is an empirical realist about the world we experience; we can know objects as they appear to us. He gives a robust defense of science and the study of the natural world from his argument about the mind’s role in making nature. All discursive, rational beings must conceive of the physical world as spatially and temporally unified, he argues.”
Duff, Okun, Veneziano, ibid. p. 3. “There is no well established terminology for the fundamental constants of Nature. … The absence of accurately defined terms or the uses (i.e., actually misuses) of ill-defined terms lead to confusion and proliferation of wrong statements.”
Carrol, Sean, Chapter One, Section Two, Plume, 2010. From Eternity to Here. ISBN978-0452296541. “As human beings we ‘feel’ the passage of time.”
Hardie, R. P.; Gaye, R. K. “Physics by Aristotle”. MIT. Retrieved 4 May 2014.“Time then is a kind of number. (Number, we must note, is used in two senses-both of what is counted or the countable and also of that with which we count. Time obviously is what is counted, not that with which we count: there are different kinds of thing.) […] It is clear, then, that time is ‘number of movement in respect of the before and after’, and is continuous since it is an attribute of what is continuous. “
Bergson, Henri (1907) Creative Evolution. trans. by Arthur Mitchell. Mineola: Dover, 1998.
Balslev, Anindita N.; Jitendranath Mohanty (November 1992). Religion and Time. Studies in the History of Religions, 54. The Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers. pp. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59. ISBN978-90-04-09583-0.
Herman M. Schwartz, Introduction to Special Relativity, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968, hardcover 442 pages, see ISBN 0-88275-478-5 (1977 edition), pp. 10–13
A. Einstein, H. A. Lorentz, H. Weyl, H. Minkowski, The Principle of Relativity, Dover Publications, Inc, 2000, softcover 216 pages, ISBN 0-486-60081-5, See pp. 37–65 for an English translation of Einstein’s original 1905 paper.
Mughal, Muhammad Aurang Zeb. 2009. Time, Absolute. H. James Birx (ed.), Encyclopedia of Time: Science, Philosophy, Theology, and Culture, Vol. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 1254-1255.
Hawking, Stephen (1996). “The Beginning of Time”. University of Cambridge. Retrieved 8 July 2012. “Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there’s no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier.”
Hawking, Stephen (1996). “The Beginning of Time”. University of Cambridge. Retrieved 8 July 2012. “The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.”
Hawking, Stephen (27 February 2006). “Professor Stephen Hawking lectures on the origin of the universe”. University of Oxford. Retrieved 5 December 2012. “Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole of the earth, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question because there is nothing south of the South Pole.”
Ghandchi, Sam : Editor/Publisher (16 January 2004). “Space and New Thinking”. Retrieved 9 April 2011. “and as Stephen Hawking puts it, asking what was before Big Bang is like asking what is North of North Pole, a meaningless question.”
Adler, Mortimer J., PhD. “Natural Theology, Chance, and God”. Retrieved 9 April 2011. “Hawking could have avoided the error of supposing that time had a beginning with the Big Bang if he had distinguished time as it is measured by physicists from time that is not measurable by physicists…. an error shared by many other great physicists in the twentieth century, the error of saying that what cannot be measured by physicists does not exist in reality.”“The Great Ideas Today”. Encyclopædia Britannica. 1992.
Adler, Mortimer J., PhD. “Natural Theology, Chance, and God”. Retrieved 9 April 2011. “Where Einstein had said that what is not measurable by physicists is of no interest to them, Hawking flatly asserts that what is not measurable by physicists does not exist—has no reality whatsoever.
With respect to time, that amounts to the denial of psychological time which is not measurable by physicists, and also to everlasting time—time before the Big Bang—which physics cannot measure. Hawking does not know that both Aquinas and Kant had shown that we cannot rationally establish that time is either finite or infinite.”“The Great Ideas Today”. Encyclopædia Britannica. 1992.
Hawking, Stephen; and Ellis, G. F. R. (1973). The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-09906-4.