What is time? – Making sense of it!

Written by Godinci.

Dali time-watch

For Ages people have wondered about the nature of ‘time’; although, we all know intuitively what time is, defining time seems somehow to give us a substantial headache and has hold us in some kind of deadlock that avoid us to understand it properly.

Let us therefore have a brief look to what modern science has to say on this subject; after all, science claims to be the sole legitimate truth-alignments methodology that enables us to liberate us from the vicious claws of Nature, by investigating, understanding and formulating Her laws in precise manner, so that She might not only be tamed, but above all is forced to reveal our essence.

Newton believed that ‘time’ passes by uniformly, and is totally distinct from physical things, although both could be brought in relation to each other. For Newton ‘space’ and ‘time’ were not mere abstractions, such as numbers, but factual – i.e. they have substance, be it material or immaterial.

In addition to that, Newton postulated that time was absolute because, according to him, ‘time’ is considered as being the same for everyone and everywhere. The fact that time, according to Newton, is totally distinct of physical things implies that time is not simple something that is measured by the motion of physical things, although a relation might exist between them since motion happens in time, yet, time isn’t motion.

G. Leibniz, Newton’s contemporary, believed in the factuality of space (i.e. space has features) but insisted that time in itself has no substance, hence, no factuality – i.e. time, according to Leibniz, is a pure (mental) abstraction. In other words, in Leibniz view, time only came into being when creatures had brains that were endowed with enough mental containing capacity to think abstract.

Our modern view of time rest on A. Einstein absurd ideas that time and space, although factual, are not separate from each other, as Newton tended to believe, but interdependent and interwoven with each other, to form what he calls ‘space-time’, that in the presence of matter-energy bends the geodesics of space-time itself.

einstein-relativity Furthermore in Einstein’s concept of time, time isn’t only a dimension but also related to the speed of light that is assumingly constant for all observers. This allows space-time to produce all kinds of wonders of bliss, ranging from gravity wormholes to easily get rid of your stepmother, time-travel that would allow you to assist your own birth, twin paradoxes were the much older sister has become much younger than her younger sister, run-away universes that accelerate proportional to human stupidity, and numerous regenerations of the death that let Jesus resurrection of the Christian narrative look stupid.

Of course, we should not ponder too much about these entertaining absurdities because A. Einstein, the hero of the plot said, I quote:

“If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it”

Although this quotations sounds stimulating we might wonder what happens if the idea, after a long-time, remains absurd?

Nonsense can be funny, but please, let us keep nonsense for pure entertainment purpose.

What is time according to Godinci?

Time, according to Godinci, is a relational abstract that measures (observable) spatial and/or structural change. There are two kinds of change

  1. Measurable change
  2. Immeasurable change

Measurable change requires physical and referential/associational things to allow us to relate and quantify this change – matter particles, and their conglomerates (be the animate or not) have such qualities. Immeasurable change is all change that occurs in the absence of any tangible physical reference but still involves a dynamic process.

To better understand immeasurable change just think of someone who is in a state of dreaming; although his/her thoughts are active, within the thought there is no quantifiable and measurable reality, only sequences within the thought, such as before, during, after, and so on. (Just ask a person that wakes-up from a dream how much time went by between two successive events within the dream – assuming she/he was not dreaming about time passing by on clocks.)
Brief, even though we’re dealing here with change, for us, it’s not longer measurable change, and so, ‘time’, in the absence of ‘measurable relational or associational things’ becomes a meaningless concept; just as energy becomes meaningless without use and/or transformation.

Not understanding those things leaves us in darkness!meaningless However, even though the concept of space and energy, in the absence of measurable things, are abstracts, they are still factual because they have substance; hence, differentiate from pure abstracts that bear no relation with the true nature of whatever what.
In other words, ‘factuals’, be they contingent or not, although expressible by means of abstracts, are in contrast to our views non-relative; and since all what is contingent is concrete (tangible), and finds its being in the factual non-contingent, means that the more tangency our abstracts have with the true nature of things the less relative and more concrete our understanding becomes.

Now, given that the evolution of all things is always state- and environment-dependent, implies that measurable relational or associational change – such as time is in physics – becomes a relative attribute. Indeed, space is factual, thus, all things (be they animate or not) moving and residing in space become subject to space, and is why moving and stationary clocks will not tick at the same rate.

Yet, may it be clear that this has nothing to do with time being a dimension, but find its roots in the fact that all things, hence, also any measuring devices, are subject to factual space.
In brief, we might be pleased, for entertainment purpose, with the way how physics came to understand time, yet, at the end of the day we’ll have to admit that time is nothing more than a relational attribute that measures the rate (evolution) of rotational, translational and/or vibrational related change.

For all simplicity you can forget all about Einstein’s time nonsense, and just stick, for daily purposes ,with the commonsense Italian notion of time – see YouTube hereunder.

Also read: What if dickheads were found? The explanatory power of Darwinism.
The Higgs…a back of bricks!


Source reference and/or other related things:

  • Gunn Qunetsov

    “Any information system carries in itself it’s unidirectioned and irreversible ”time” and a metric ”space”, bounded with this ”time” by the Poincare divisible group transformations. ”
    “if you have some set of objects, dealing with information, then ”time” and ”space” are inevitable. And it doesn’t matter whether this set is included in our world or some other worlds, which don’t have a space-time structure initially.
    I call such ”Time” as Informational Time.
    Because we receive our time with our informational system then all other our times’ notions (thermodynamical time, cosmological time, psychological time etc.) should be defined by that Informational Time.”


    Quznetsov G 2013 Logical foundation of fundamental theoretical physics (Lambert Academic Publ.),

    • http://godinci.org/ Godinci

      So, Gunn (if you don’t mind calling you so)…do you agree that time is just a relational attribute? – in your case it relates to information. Can there exist a system that contains no information? Does the information contained in a system that is involved with the behavioral feature of a system, always comes from that system itself?

      • Gunn Qunetsov

        Godinci, on all these your questions — YES

        • http://godinci.org/ Godinci

          Hi Gunn,

          Please would you be so kind to give us an example of:

          1. a system of which its overall function that defines the system was determined by the system itself. for example – what determined a screw driver to become and operate as a screwdriver.

          2. a system that contains no information.

          Thanks in advance

          • Gunn Qunetsov

            Hi Godinci,
            What do you call “SYSTEM”?
            I call “INFORMATION SYSTEM” that is described in http://vixra.org/pdf/1405.0341v1.pdf.

          • http://godinci.org/ Godinci

            Looking to your mathematical paper I see no clear definition of what you mean with ‘system’. However, after some brain storming I came to understand the following of your paper. You wrote something among these lines:

            “I call any subject connected with information as an ‘informational object’.

            I therefore assume that you mean with system:the assembly of all informational objects/parts making up an integrated whole.
            If this is a correct deduction than tell me so…in the mean time I’ll try to define in my words what we mean with a system to see if we can find some consensus to get the discussion going, OK?

          • Gunn Qunetsov

            OK, Dear Godinci :)

          • http://godinci.org/ Godinci

            Hi Gunn, here follows our temporally definition of a system.

            A system = the assembly of parts (be the animate or not) that form an integrated whole and serve a function – i.e. have utility and are capable of interaction with the environment (inner and outer environment).
            The functionality of a system always depends on the capacity of its composing parts/entities to interact with each other in such extend that the behavioral responses following from all these interactions produce the intended outcomes. (Although a system can make use of 1 ore more processes, a process isn’t in itself necessarily a system).

            What information concerns we might say that: information is a referential or relational attribute that has the ability – be it in potential or being – to direct and/or influence the behavior of other things true association!

          • Gunn Qunetsov

            Dear Godinci,
            Please,define the following notions:

            inner and outer environment,
            The functionality of a system,
            the capacity of its composing parts/entities,

          • http://godinci.org/ Godinci

            Hi Gunn, with inner and outer environment we simply mean an entities inner and outer world. Regarding “the functionality of a system” it’s important to note that any system is meant to do something, that’s why you can speak of the functionality or efficiency of a system in regard to what it was meant to do. Concerning “The capacity of its composing parts”, this refers to the ability of the parts of a system to interact with each other in such way that they behavior wise produce the intended outcome -i.e. in accordance with the purpose of the system.