Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:11, 2 July 2012

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Time article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

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

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

Template:VA

	Time is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 22, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 18, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

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

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Time article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

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

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

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

Template:WP1.0

Should we start with the Philosophy?

I can't feel we should start with the philosophy first, you can't measure time unless you have worked out what it is, a header is not the same as a definition. Maybe time measurement should be a seperate article? 2.97.173.98 (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea. Both in science and in everyday life, scientists and John Doe have (unanimously) worked out that time can only usefully be defined as what is read on a clock (from wristwatch to cesium atom) — see also Time in physics. So time is essentially measurement bound. Putting philosophy first would give heavy undue weight to a (mutually disagreeing) body of practically useless and therefore much less relevant points of view. It's actually the philosophers who never managed to "work out what it is", so to speak. - DVdm (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

But time is relative to culture and environment, take the Mayans who look at time as a never ending cycle of segments determined on Solar and Lunar calendars. This was the standard way of looking at things throughout pre-history. We retain this structure even now only we say a solar year as a standard unit of measuring time. Despite the "fact;" We reset it each January! 150.182.210.231 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the Sun and the Moon can be (and are) used as clocks, so they can be used to define time. Look at our units like days, months and years (and their many flavours). These useful clocks/units, together with, for instance, heart beats, fit nicely in the aforementioned list of clocks (from wristwatch to cesium atom). That probably explains why the article starts with the history section. - DVdm (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please remove some external links

Please remove some external links from external links section. The amount of links we have in that section currently, we can easily create another article on it. I thought of editing myself, but, since I am not a regular editor of the article (don't know about previous consensus -if there was any on this) I am requesting it here. I have noticed there are some books too in external links section. Can we include those in further reading section? Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish to reiterate my first improvement proposal:

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

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

"pleasure" is what we measure by our questionaries,

"size" is what we measure with a ruler,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(after edit conflicts)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New lede changes

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

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

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

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

Hadith: "Allah is Time"

Something that could be added to the Religion section:

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

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

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

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

First sentence discussion

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

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

Primary definitions:

thefreedictionary.com 1.

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

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

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

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

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

Merriam-Webster Dictionary 1

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

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

American Heritage Dictionary 1.

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

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

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

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

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

Oxford English Dictionary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems with the proposed change

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

I do not see how the edit summary

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

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

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

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

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

Restore format

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

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

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

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

The three leading English language dictionaries is not sufficiently reliable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/in+time

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