Does time move forward?

« Older   Newer »
  Share  
view post Posted on 16/12/2011, 07:33
Avatar

Member

Group:
Administrator
Posts:
756

Status:


Here's a question that's been itching me. Does time move forward?

To say time moves forward, as I've heard several times, is an interesting way of combining space and time. But how can it be true? The first problem is to imagine the space in which time is supposed to move. How do we know which way is forward, there? But even if there is a distinct directionality in that space, the concept of "forward" makes it impractical. Forward is nothing, if not a difference in location. Which means there was a prior location, and there is a subsequent location, which is located in a direction we can call "forward". But prior and subsequent are moments defined by time, which is the subject of the sentence.

I think it's useless to say: "Time is moving forward"!
 
Top
ex nihilo
view post Posted on 16/12/2011, 10:10




:lol: I've disscused this on UCW. The question is not a matter of time changing, because it does (seem to at least). It is more a question of direction. For example, if we go up we are also going down, left and right. It us only because we view ourselves as going down that we precieve it to be. Simmilarly, if someone is going fowards they are also goinbg backwards. Direction utterly depends on the point of the preciever.

This make sense?
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 16/12/2011, 15:18




The idiom I am more familiar with is "time passes". That could mean it overtakes us: or it could mean it is travelling in the opposite direction and so passes us on the other carriageway, so to speak.

But another idiom we have is "passing the time". In that case it is presumably stationary and we are moving


Once again I tend to think the problem is in the language and not in the phenomenon itself
 
Top
ex nihilo
view post Posted on 16/12/2011, 20:57




QUOTE (FionaK @ 16/12/2011, 22:18) 
The idiom I am more familiar with is "time passes". That could mean it overtakes us: or it could mean it is travelling in the opposite direction and so passes us on the other carriageway, so to speak.

But another idiom we have is "passing the time". In that case it is presumably stationary and we are moving


Once again I tend to think the problem is in the language and not in the phenomenon itself

Might have a point there. Language is a monstorous thing. Constricts us really. I should probably look at Chomsky some time and other linguists to see how it is formed and restricts us.
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 16/12/2011, 23:59




To be honest I think language does not constrict us enough, most of the time. A great deal of confusion arises from imprecision. That is why we have "jargon": professionals in certain fields have specialised language much more precise than ordinary language because it is important to be clear what they are talking about. We could all do with thinking harder about what we really mean when things puzzle us: there is a wealth of unexamined assumption floating about in our speech and it serves to confuse us a lot of the time
 
Top
ex nihilo
view post Posted on 10/2/2012, 13:45




Something I appear to do quite a lot... Unfortunetly.

Still, I am undecieded if language restricts us or frees us.
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 10/2/2012, 13:49




What factors are you thinking about in trying to reach a conclusion?
 
Top
ex nihilo
view post Posted on 11/2/2012, 01:11




QUOTE (FionaK @ 10/2/2012, 20:49) 
What factors are you thinking about in trying to reach a conclusion?

The limiting factors of language, such as contested terms and the factors which free us and enable us to describe things in more precise detail. Something along these lines, though in truth I have had very little critical thought on the subject, so probably don't know what I'm talking about (by the way, I don't suppouse your a linguist are you?)
 
Top
Lord Muck oGentry
view post Posted on 11/2/2012, 01:48




QUOTE (Vninect @ 16/12/2011, 07:33) 
Here's a question that's been itching me. Does time move forward?

To say time moves forward, as I've heard several times, is an interesting way of combining space and time. But how can it be true? The first problem is to imagine the space in which time is supposed to move. How do we know which way is forward, there? But even if there is a distinct directionality in that space, the concept of "forward" makes it impractical. Forward is nothing, if not a difference in location. Which means there was a prior location, and there is a subsequent location, which is located in a direction we can call "forward". But prior and subsequent are moments defined by time, which is the subject of the sentence.

I think it's useless to say: "Time is moving forward"!

Well, I'm no one's idea of an expert. But you may find this article on Time's Arrow interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

In particular, there's this:
QUOTE
The thermodynamic arrow of time
Main article: Entropy (arrow of time)

The thermodynamic arrow of time is provided by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that in an isolated system, entropy tends to increase with time. Entropy can be thought of as a measure of microscopic disorder; thus the Second Law implies that time is asymmetrical with respect to the amount of order in an isolated system: as a system advances through time, it will statistically become more disordered. This asymmetry can be used empirically to distinguish between future and past though measuring entropy does not accurately measure time. Also in an open system entropy can locally decrease with time: living systems decrease their entropy by expenditure of energy at the expense of environmental entropy increase

With a wet towel tightly wrapped round my little head, I think I have worked out that this means we can in principle tell whether we are going forwards or backwards. At worst, we know what we mean when we distinguish sooner from later.
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 11/2/2012, 03:20




@ex nihilo: Not a linguist: Vninect is your man for that. Not studied linguistics in any depth either, if that is what you mean.

I am more of a dilettante :)
 
Top
ex nihilo
view post Posted on 11/2/2012, 14:56




QUOTE (FionaK @ 11/2/2012, 10:20) 
@ex nihilo: Not a linguist: Vninect is your man for that. Not studied linguistics in any depth either, if that is what you mean.

I am more of a dilettante :)

So you just enjoy the topic, rather than do it professionly. Had me fooled there, you appeared to be a professional to me. :lol:
 
Top
10 replies since 16/12/2011, 07:33   124 views
  Share