Talk:Time/Archive 6

Chip Scale atomic clock
That picture of a chip-scale atomic clock has to be the most archaic kludge of technology I've seen since Jack Kilby's first integrated circuit. Handcrafted wirebonds and solder joints? I think technology has done better than that by now. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It was New in 2004. Idea is to make them small - applications for GPS maybe? Caption does need work--JimWae (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a laboratory prototype. From that perspective it probably is not likely to look like a packaged commercial product. Furthermore, the chip-scale atomic clock is obviously not the solder joints and the in-lab wiring. Some people probably find this image (and the story behind it) fascinating - I know I do. Finally, this clock seems to be an advancement, the culmination of a research effort, which produced a device 100 times smaller than previous atomic clocks. In my opinion, that is an accomplishment worthy of note.


 * Jim, one possible application is to replace the quartz crystal oscillators. It is also intended for integration into wireless communications technologies, "precise navigation", and time keeping devices in the commercial and military sectors.


 * Also, it is interesting that it can be operated on batteries, integrated into existing semiconductor applications and fabrication processes, has the potential for mass production now, and vastly outperform quartz crystal oscillators.  Steve Quinn (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Perception of time
The Time article shows a diagram representing 4-dimensional spacetime with the "present" in 3-dimensions. (For simplicity, this is shown as 3-dimensionsal spacetime with the "present" in 2-dimensions.)
 * Another way of putting this could be to view us as 4-dimensional entities passing through a 3-dimensional universe at a particular rate ("the flow of time") in which light (i.e. our ability to perceive things) were located, and that these 3-dimensions could be distorted by high-mass objects (e.g. gravity's effect e.g. black holes). This particular rate ("the flow of time") through the 3-dimensional universe could be converted to movement within the 3-dimensional universe, until the speed of light is reached, at which point the rate (“the flow of time") drops to zero. Again, perhaps it's easier to show this as 3-dimensional entities passing through a 2-dimensional universe. This would be consistent with our perceived flow of time and the scientific views espoused within the article, and therefore not comprise new research. Would it be helpful to add this other way of putting things to the body of the article? Wyncandy (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Contributions to encyclopedia articles need to be verifiably from reliable sources. Blogs are for original research--JimWae (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Proper/coordinate time
Should their be some discussion of this distinction in the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not a discussion here, but at the end of the section time, immediately before the first subsection, a short by-the-way mention with wikilinks to the relevant articles Proper time and Coordinate time. - DVdm (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

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. ( m bork3 !) 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. ( m bork3 !) 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 [a] 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. ( m bork3 !) 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. ( m bork3 !) 10:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Reiterating: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 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. ( m bork3 !) 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. ( m bork3 !) 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 Wikipedia 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. ( m bork3 !) 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. ( m bork3 !) 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 [the vicissitudes of] 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)
 * In Greek mythology we have Chronos creator of the cosmos out of chaos and father of the gods.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:33, 4 July 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)
 * IP 71.169.187.182, I think all that you mentioned below is covered in this article already. This is a general article that covers the relevant disciplines and is therefore sufficiently fufilling its function. And this article provides links to other articles which have more information. So even more is in these articles. I am sure that anything you come with is already covered. Why reinvent the wheel?  Steve Quinn (talk) 14:03, 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.
 * 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)


 * There really is no need to break up other's comments. That type of editing is disruptive -- just letting you know. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the lede definition is to present a concept in simpler terms, not to use convoluted & vague language such as "indefinite.. progress of existence and events" and then have to unpack it by saying "we do not mean progress in the ordinary meaning" and "indefinite" is to be construed as 'indefinitely' or 'indefinite', or maybe we do not need it at all".
 * The proposed lede depends on presuming readers will interpret "indefinite... progress of existence and events" as carrying some vague/unclear elements of time, accomplishing *[except for the link to sequence ]* little more than saying "Time is time (you know what that means, don't you?)"
 * What purpose is served in distinguishing material reality from conscious experience (note red-links of those words themselves) if the only examples are tennis balls per second and dotted lines per second - both of which are usually construed as part of both realms and neither requires anything particularly human (or even living)? Why introduce a dichotomy when there are still no examples of quantified rates of change applicable only to one of the "realms". What advantage is there to introducing "material reality" as some separate (ultra-real?) realm from human experience - especially when it (so far) matters not at all in understanding "time"?
 * I do have an alternative wording that includes SOME of the language including "continuum" and "irreversible" which I have been working on.--JimWae (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, please discuss here rather than edit warring.--JimWae (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Whether time "exists" separate from measurement is at issue & it would be POV to say it does. The present lede does not say time does "exist" apart from measurement and does not say it does NOT exist apart from measurement. Instead, per WP:NPOV, it points to the issue. This IS and has been consensus lede for 4 yrs +--JimWae (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because of the anonymous IP's edits the discussion was unreadable, now it is readable. The anonymous IP created mess of that section of the talk page. This person's mess had to be fixed. Also, the anon IP's action appears to be an attempt to hi-jack and dominate the discussion and the article. Also the propoed lede by the anonymous IP is vaguely worded and is not really based on reliable sources. The standing lede is accurate and clear. Also, the anonymous IP has refused to engage in discussion other than the previous shotgun spray responses and unilaterly decided to change the lede again. Furthermore, up to this point most of this person's arguments are without merit. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The IP's main argument is that the "consensus" lead (which apparently has less of a consensus than you think) restricts the concept of time too narrowly to treat its aspect as "part fo a measurement system". This narrow definition is not supported in those general works on the topic of time that I have been able to find. Everyone is allowed to make "unilateral" bold changes (provided that one engages in discussion if reverted) and everyone has the right to have their arguments treated with respect when offered with respect - rather than simply rejected as "without merit" (based on what?). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, trying to make issue out of the fact that I chose only the first sentence to begin the discussion. It is not a good idea to further edit a person's entry on an article's talk page, which is what happened. I was talking about the first sentence. The anonymous IP instead tried to decide what I meant and added more to that. If the second or third sentence is to be brought into the discussion then do so without editng someone elses entry.
 * Second, the behavior of adding responses line by line for about 20 lines between another editor and I and breaking up our paragraphs to do so does not allow for clear perspective on what is being said. Also, sorry but I don't have the time to answer line by line responses.
 * Third, we don't have a definition for conciousness, existence, and other such philosphical terms that everyone or most everyone can agree on. I will try to ferret other such wording that was used. Also saying "every increase in time amounts to progress," is not clear, but it is not actually true. I have to ask "progress in what context?" However, I am sure this wording needs to be changed somehow.
 * Fourth "progress of existence" does not have a clear anchor - is that the progress of my existence?. Even sequence of existence is hard to pin down. I think I will have more later. Thanks for asking an a appropriate manner. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, if you look at the sources or definitions quoted by the anon IP above you will see they are related to counting more than anything else. I am guessing this is behind the present lede. Also you will see that only one mentions "existence" but that is also related to counting. In addition, if we were to go with the definitions that have the most weight --then existence does not have the most weight - it is only one word combined with counting. So to emphasize "existence" in the lede then that is undue weight. Also I don't see anything about concious or conciousness. In other words, the anonymous IPs lede puts together wording in way that does not reflect what the sources say and that he/she is citing. I already pointed this out above, but this person has chosen to ignore this and instead go on a tear about unrelated issues, which were caused by this person in the first place. The issue is not the re-formatting of responses in proper order. But this person has brought this up on my talk page and JimWae's talk page - as if this were the real issue. This was followed by reverting the lede, but without further discussion. JimWae has responded to this person. This person's response has been to remove a long standing lede-- not further discussion.   Steve Quinn (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP is obviously new to wikipedia - that means that you should gently help him/her acquire the optimal editing habits, and that you should show extra willingness to try to understand the points he/she is trying to make, not that you should dismiss his/her arguments out of hand because they are not well formed wikisyntax.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you make a good point here. I will have to "take this onboard" and look at my editing style. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"consensus" lead
The "consensus" lead reinserted by Steve Quinn seems to have some severe flaws - among them an overreliance on defining time as part of physical measurement, rather than as a phenomena in its own right (most of the sources about the concept Time clearly do not adopt this exclusively physical definition of time). If this is consensus then consensus has to change to reflect a wider array of sources about the topic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for opening up this discussion as I requested in the edit history Steve Quinn (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To suggest that there is a "consensus" in an article that has more than a dozen edits a month for many months seems to show a preference for one particular edit over against all the others. Please provide some reason for reverting my referenced material other than just that it isn't "consensus". Is it wrong? Is it better than the version we had? This is what we should be discussing, not just whether or not it agrees with a nonexistant "consensus". Rick Norwood (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All I was trying to say was that we should open it for discussion before making abrupt changes. The lede that has been with this article has worked really well. At the same time I did not agree with some of your wording. I will have to add that later. Also, I don't understand why Rick just came in seemingly out of the blue and changed the lede? What is up with that? Steve Quinn (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter. Everyone can change the lead out of the blue - thats how wikipedia works. You reverted, and now your supposed to argue why his changes werten't adequate. Just pointing to "consensus" is not helpful. Consensus changes when it is challenged. Now lets discuss how to improve the lead. I think there was good parts to Rick's lead - the use of Callender's book for example - Callender has written several books about the general concept of time, and he seems to incorporate both philosophy and physics. It seems like a very good tertiary source to use for a general definition (I think we should generally avoid dictionary definitions and use definitions in tertiary sources written by experts on the topic (often encyclopedia definitions are good that way)). I didn't think the inclusion of St. Augustine was necessary since he basically just said he didn't know. But apparently many books about time use this quote as an example of the difficulty of defining time. The current definition is entirely inadequate, it is circular in that it describes time as part of a system of measurement of ...time. That is nonsensical - time is a obviously physical force that predates and goes before the system of physical measurement. Time did not appear when people started measuring stuff it was there already. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * First I request that one of you restore Rick's lede to be followed by a discussion of what I (and maybe others) don't agree with. If the present lede is better than Rick's lede or some other lede then let's find out. Are you guys up for the challenge ? So please, I feel that it is only fair to restore Rick's lede. I think you both make good points here. It is good to discuss matters with rational people. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I Don't think we need to restore it - that might need to unnecessary editwars. We can tweak it here on the talkpage before introducing a new lead to the article. I'll copy Rick's lead to the talkpage so we can work on it here. Thanks for your forthcoming attitude. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK great and agreed. I just want to hit on somwthing Maunus just wrote. I think time didn't exist until we invented it for ourselves and began to measure it. I don't see how time can exist without human beings saying that time exists. That may sound anthromophoric, but ... If humans did not exist then there would be no one on the planet that is aware of time - hence it would not exist. IMHO and maybe I could find something somewhere that says this (maybe) Steve Quinn (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an odd and counterintuitive argument since if time didn't exist to begin with humans couldn't have beconme aware of it. And also because by extension anything else we profess to study that is before the advent of humans (such as the Big Bang, Dinosaurs, or stars that we can observe but which no longer exist) can also not be said to exist. It is basically just the "if a tree falls in the woods" argument. It also begs the question whetehr not other lifeforms necessarily experience the world in time. You would certainly need a very good source to introduce such a definiton i would say.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

New Definition Workshop
Rick Norwood's proposal: "''Time is both the subjective experience that sensations follow one another in sequence and the objective measurement performed by clocks and other devices. It is common to all human experience and is the subject of both philosophical speculation and scientific study. On the philosophical question, St. Augustine wrote, "What is time. If no one asks me, I know. But if I wanted to explain it to one who asks me, I plainly do not know."" ''

Maunus' opinion:
 * Pros: 1. Introduces the question of subjectivity and sequentiality, 2. Shows that the question of a definition is controversial and that even good minds of the past have pondered this.
 * Cons: 1. Gives too much weight on the subjective experience by placing it first. 2. Doesn't mention the physical force/concept of time as the thing that is being subjectively felt and objectively measured. 3. Gives too much weight to St. Augustine who people likes to make out as some sort of expert on everything from language to life, to time, to existence, to God etc. - but who just was a medieval monk who happened to formulate important questions in nice language, but who was neither the first to think about these things nor the one to formulate tenable solutions to them.
 * Suggestions: Look at the ways in which Callender defines time in his books - does he define it as subjective experience and obvjective measurement or as something that has an independent physical existence? Look at other prominent books on the topic such as Charles M. Sherover. 2001. The Human Experience of Time: The Development of Its Philosophic Meaning. Northwestern University Press. -Katinka Ridderbos. 2002. Time. Cambridge University Press - Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The Structure of Time: Language, Meaning, and Temporal Cognition. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003 - Huw Price. 1997. Time's Arrow & Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. Oxford University Press - Eva T. H. Brann. 1999. What, then, is time? Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Rick Norwood's proposal: I appreciate the discussion of my proposed first paragraph, but let's include all of it. I did not replace the scientific view with the philosophic view, but rather included both: "''Time is both the subjective experience that sensations follow one another in sequence and the objective measurement performed by clocks and other devices. It is common to all human experience and is the subject of both philosophical speculation and scientific study. On the philosophical question, St. Augustine wrote, "What is time. If no one asks me, I know. But if I wanted to explain it to one who asks me, I plainly do not know." In science, the standard unit of measurement of time is the second, one of the fundamental units in the metric system, a unit whose origin can be traced back to ancient Mesopotamia, where the day was divided into 24 hours, the hour into 60 minutes, and the minute into 60 seconds, but the modern unit has a more precise scientific definition." ''

Response to Maunus: 1) I put the subjective idea of time ahead of the objective idea because it came first. People experienced time before they measured it.  2) To mention that time is both subjective and objective is certainly to suggest that it is both. 3) St. Augustine is quoted not for his own sake, but because he is the starting point for the discussion of time by many later philosophers. My view of writing for Wikipedia is: begin at the beginning, and go on till you come to the end: then stop.  Rick Norwood (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would place the beginning before either experience or measurement - since the existence of something that can be experienced and measured is intuitively apriori. I respect the question of whether anything exists before we become aware of it, but I think it is too esoteric a point for the lead of an article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rick I noticed that Yeah, you included both views. I must say that first sentence seems to be really good. I am still working on the rest of it. Also, I agree -- let's include all of it. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that this subject tends to be controversial. However, some of this is explained throughout the four paragraphs in the lede - no matter this lede or some other. I think this helps to attenuate the original research on the subject. Moving on -- I think placing the subjective experience first is the best way to relate to the reader. It seems that everyone can relate to a subjective experience of time -- even it is a pre-human force of nature. The experience does seem to be subjective. It is only when I think of time beyond myself that I might see something more. For example I can understand that there is space-time. Hence, there must be some sources that discuss this subjective expereince -- and it seems that Callendar is one of them based on Rick's entry.
 * I appreciate Mannus' take on St. Francis. However, I don't want to take away his place as a possible voice to express human understanding. Mving on -- I agree that a subject such as time existing before we became aware of it is too esoteric a point for the lead of an article.
 * Also, for the record I think that "time as part of a measuring system" would also be approprite for the lede. How else are we to know one thing happened after another in a physical sense? How else are to determine causality in a physical system? Steve Quinn (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Question for Maunus - How would you go about placing "the beginning" before either experience or measurement? It is certainly worth looking at your view on this matter Steve Quinn (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would look at how reliable tertiary sources written by experts on time (chronologists?) do it. Or alternatively i would look at how articles about other physical forces/concepts approach the topic. E.g. space, universe, energy, mass.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good suggestion. On another note - for the lede I think we could leave out the quote from St.Francis and the blurb about Mesopotemia. Both of these seem to dilute the paragraph. I like what you have about the second as an appliable unit. I wonder if we need to say more about physical systems. JimWae has pointed out that (in essence) "time" and "meauring system" do not exist apart form each other. Hopefully this statement is not too strong. However, it does make sense to me. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding St. Augustine and the mesopotamians - they could go in a history section. I don't take Jim Wae's word for the necessity of measuring systems for the existence of time. It would require a very good source to establish that that is the mainstream view.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I worked a bit on a blend that goes something like:
 * Time is both the experience that events have duration, can be sequenced, and have intervals between them, and also is the quantity with which the intervals and durations of events are measured, typically using a clock.

However, is time really to be identified with an experience? Do reliable tertiary sources predominantly define time as an experience? ... or as a sensation?--JimWae (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I still think that this suffers from circularity or begging the question - if there is experience or sensation or measurement then what is being measured? You somehow have to tackle the issue of whether time has independent existence.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree my "blend" (and what it is blending) suffers, as explained above. However, we cannot decide in our article whether time has independent existence, we can only remark on the issue - which the 3rd paragraph of the lede has done for years. I must reiterate that the 4-yr consensus 1st sentence does not say that time is ONLY a measurment, it is silent on that - in accord with "less is better" it gives a minimum def of time--JimWae (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't need to decide it - we let the sources decide.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources are not all of one opinion. We cannot decide which source is "correct".--JimWae (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that I am discovering from sources that it may be difficult to say that time is an apriori experience or sensation backed up by sources. Also, I can say that time is subjective for me, but what exactly do I mean by that? It seems the only way I "experience" time is that a duration has occured. And it may be that the only way I know that duration has occured is through my movement from point A to point B or movement around me, or looking at my watch. Of course longer durations and intervals can be marked by the sun rising and setting, and so on.


 * Take a look atThe Experience and Perception of Time. This seems to show that our perception of time as something occuring is actually a combination of short term memory, awareness of the movement of objects, and intervals and durations. There may not be any empirical knowledge or proof that time is a sensation or experience. It certainly has been posited but it has not been nailed down. It is looking like the past is a phenomenom of memory. If may use one quote from this, not to sum up but to show a present state of this subject, "Indeed, it is interesting to note how many philosophers have taken the view that, despite appearances, time, or some aspect of time, is unreal."


 * Finally, I think that most of Rick's sources, that were externally linked in the lede, support the view that time is a "system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects," (that may somehow sound familiar - h-m-m-m). In particular Rick's link to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosphy. In fact these two sources are echoed in the present lede. And please note these are scholarly works of "philosophy". Comments? Discussion?  Steve Quinn (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds generally good to me, with the slight modification (echoing my earlier comments below) that a system of time is a system used to sequence events, compare durations and intervals, rates of change and motion, etc... while time itself is the sequence of events, the durations and intervals, the change and motion; or that along which events are sequenced, which durations and intervals span, and across which change and motion occur. What I am generally trying to get across is that the map is not the territory, and we should not conflate a measure of time or a system of measuring time for time itself by definition (but without ruling out positions which say there is nothing but the measurement, either, i.e. positions which say there is no territory, we just make up maps for our convenience). --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to comment that the version in progress at the article right now sounds absolutely horrible. It's like there is no lede, we just begin with a sentence about something to do with time, as though mid-thought. A lede needs to begin with something like "Time is...", even if what follows that is some variant on "difficult to define uncontroversially" (though preferably something at least a little more substantial than that). --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As off-the-cuff as it was when I first suggested it, I'm starting to think that something like "Time is that which durations and intervals span, across which change and motion occur, and along which events are sequenced from past, through present, to future." would work well. It is a bit circular, I admit, but very indirectly so; it related the concept of time to a lot of other closely related concepts, even if those other related concepts can't quite be defined without eventual reference back to time. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's dreadful & in several places clearly wrong in explaining the two main positions. Also having philosophers do no more than "speculate", while scientists "study" is a false dichotomy. Using a quote in which "feel" is in scare quotes as a source for time being an experience is not even good cherry-picking. Try this: Time is a dimension in which events can be sequenced, in which the durations of events and the intervals between them can be quantified, and over which changes can be measured.--JimWae (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty good with that, but the stickler for neutrality in me thinks that "dimension" may give bias to eternalism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything in "dimension" that implies persistence or reversibility.--JimWae (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Retro
The retroactive first sentence says: "Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events.." - According to this definition, time is a "part" of a "measuring system." Does this "measuring system" have a name? Does it have an article? Certainly a concept of which time is a fundamental part must have a name, and likely an article. What is its name?

Is there a problem with describing time as a physical phenomenon? After all that is what it is. For example, it is considered a fundamental component in the concept of spacetime, itself a fundamental concept in most of physics. Physics has priority. -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Physics doesn't have priority, sources have priority. And "afterall that is what it is" is not an argument.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, sources in physics have priority, over a physical concept. And "after all that is what it is" is indeed not an argument, its a reiteration. In this context its not inapt, after all some here don't appear to grasp that time is physical. -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but time is not just a physical concept. Sources about time have priority over the definition of time. So present a source about time which says that that is what time is - then we'll be making progress. No amount of reiterations will make it possible to insert your opinion into the text. Only sources that support it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. This article must remain neutral to considerations of time as a concept in physics, philosophy, religion, and any common or lay understanding of it as well. In areas that its definition is contentious, such as philosophy and religion, we must also maintain neutrality between the different contentious definitions; and if there is anything to discuss of a common or lay understanding (and that's a big if), we must make sure not to privilege any of these contentious definitions as definitively "the common sense one", but rather back up and qualify any claim as according to some source, such-and-such is the most commonly accepted notion of time. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My only real objection to the lede at it currently stands is the "part of a measuring system" phrase; something otherwise very much like what stands now, reworded without that phrase, would be fine by me. Something like "Time is a sequencing of events, and a measure of the duration of those events and the degree of their separation." That definitely needs work, but the gist I'm aiming for is: time is whatever clocks measure, it is not the act of measuring itself, or some technique or system for conducting such acts of measurements. The way it's worded right now, it sounds like the latter, and I can see why people would object to that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Time is a real phenomenon, meaning it is a part of reality. All real things conform to physical laws, known or unknown, hence time is a topic firmly within the domain of physics. Granted, time is not yet fully explained in physics, but our most profound insights about time do come from physics. Philosophy and religion have perhaps inspired some of these insights, and we of course should report such insights here, but reality and all that it contains are physical in nature, hence physics (ie. sources in physics) takes priority.

That's not to say the opening sentences should be technical, in fact I agree that the intro should be general, and talk generally about the concept as we currently understand it. Thats why the dictionaries are important - they talk about what words mean as we currently use them, even if our understanding of such things may be yet undeveloped. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Historical context for this debate
I don't intend to participate in this discussion; however, I'll dredge up a bit of context in the hopes that it can move forward rather than treading old ground: I respectfully suggest that before the current debate goes too much farther, it'd be a good idea to write a brief summary in this thread of what the main points of discussion were the last few times around. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Most recent extended debate on the topic (2010): Talk:Time/Archive 5, Talk:Time/Archive 5, Talk:Time/Archive 5, Talk:Time/Archive 5, Talk:Time/Archive 5
 * Earlier 2010 material: Talk:Time/Archive 4, Talk:Time/Archive 4
 * Less recent extended debate on the topic (2008): Talk:Time/Archive 4, Talk:Time/Archive 4


 * Christopher thanks for doing this. These certainly give us a point of reference. Maybe we can avoid repeating the past. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My best advice? Plan to hold a proper RFC on what the focus of the Time article should be (vs what's already at Time in physics, and what could go in a hypothetical Time in religion and philosophy article). It'll take you a little while to agree on how to properly phrase the RFC question or questions, but it'll be time well-spent. The past debates have been largely the same group of people (with a little bit of turnover, but not much). More eyes, and (hopefully) a clear mandate for what should be in the article, would help a lot. From there, deciding on what the lede should contain is straightforward. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I just want the protest the hypothetical lumping of philosophical and religious views together in this comment. Philosophical discussion of time has much closer connections to scientific discussion of time than it does religious discussion of time. Perhaps three articles might be called for: Time (philosophy), Time (religion), and Time (physics) ("in..." is not standard naming convention for discipline-specific forks of a subject); or if there's not enough material to fill three such articles, just discussing the physical, philosophical, and religious aspects of time separately in this article would be fine. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that "Time in Religion" is a subject we want to discuss in this article. I only included the St. Augustine quote because other authors do, and they included the quote to show the difficulty of defining time, not to discuss theology. It seems to me that we have more-or-less a consensus that the first paragraph should mention philosophy and science, and that we're essentially discussing exactly how that should be worded. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are already two articles that appear to cover philosophical aspects of time: Eternalism (philosophy of time) and Philosophy of space and time. There are also a Wiki-Categories entitled Philosophy of time and Temporal logic. - Steve Quinn (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To Christopher Thomas, note that the most recent discussion about this subject is still on this page at the section, where Rursus Dixit raised the point that the lede at that time, what I referred to as the "retro" lede above, contains an egregious fallacy. Rursus and I managed to be convincing, and Jim Wae himself chose to amend with the lede with a more general introductory sentence, which I applauded and others appeared to be satisfied with. Thats the more recent history, and its relevant. Regards,-Stevertigo (t | c) 04:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a general agreement that the current lead is not good, and several people have expressed approval of my rewrite, either in whole or in part, so I'm going to restore it. Please, if you don't like it, instead of reverting it, try to improve it. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to make more than one change at a time (except for getting rid of that stray slash ref) but should the lead really say "Time is what clocks measure." three times. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

TO REPEAT: I worked a bit on a blend that goes something like:
 * Time is both the experience that events have duration, can be sequenced, and have intervals between them, and also is the quantity with which the intervals and durations of events are measured, typically using a clock.

However, is time really to be identified with an experience? Do reliable tertiary sources predominantly define time as an experience? ... or as a sensation? I am travelling and have little opportunity to talk here, but also putting long quotes from other sources in the body of the lede, while not including their content in the ledes own words, is not the way to write an encyclopedia. People do NOT agree the lede (which has been there 4-years AND is quoted in at least one scholarly work) is BAD, they are talking about improving what is there. I do like the direction in the "map is not the territory" comment. Meanwhile, I am reverting per WP:BOLD.--JimWae (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Jim, since you haven't reverted yet, as I write this, please instead of reverting put your own version up. Revert wars don't get anywhere. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD applies here, and is the way to avoid revert wars. Significant objections have been raised about your edit, and have not been responded to. They should be addressed BEFORE improvements to your version are re-applied. Please revert yourself.--JimWae (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There have also been objections to the old lead, in particular to the idea that time is "part" of something. The main objection to my lead is that some people don't like the St. Augustine quote. Others do. I have no problem with someone who doesn't like it taking it out. I have no problem with you putting your sentence, which is quite good, in. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That does not justify discarding all the text about events, durations, intervals & change. Another way to deal with the issues being raised, is to return to the version of more than 4 yrs ago, the one that resembled the present 3rd paragraph "Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide scholars"--JimWae (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, sensations are events too, but starting with sensations rather than events in general is taking a phenomenological POV. Most importantly, and this is already the THIRD time I have had to say this to you about your version, there is no sourcing for "Time is an experience about sensations".--JimWae (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

My intent was not to discard stuff. Since you seem reluctant to add your own version, I'll see if I can combine our two versions effectively. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * FOURTH time: where is the source for the empiricist POV that "Time is an experience..." --JimWae (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, This page is where new revisions need to be worked on & collaborations & compromises proposed - not on the article page itself--JimWae (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." To need a reference for your own statement that "time is an experience" seems like asking for a reference that eyes are for seeing, but I'll find one, and add it. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1>BRD is the way to avoid edit wars, and ignoring it is, at least, impolite. 2>VERIFY is policy, and replacing sourced text with unsourced text is more than impolite. 3>From the article: "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.[38]" - not an experience in itself--JimWae (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have provided the refernce you requested. Kant's distinction, between what we "experience" and what we "comprehend", is too technical for the lead. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * NO, 1>That source supports "Time is an imagining we inject into experience", not "time IS an experience". It more nearly supports the Kantian view. 2>Time is PART OF space-time, PART OF the way we structure the world, and PART OF the system of measurement we use for events, their durations, the intervals, and changes. By saying what time is PART OF, we avoid the temptation to think we have arrived at some complete definition of time.--JimWae (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Rick, I think that placing your lede in the article is space is premature at this time. I stated some objections to this lede in the above three paragraphs of my last entry. I pointed out that so far sources do not tend to back up that time is a subjective experience or that time is a "sense" (like hearing or smelling). I also wrote that "sources seems to show that our perception of time as something occuring is actually a combination of short term memory, awareness of the movement of objects, and intervals and durations. There may not be any empirical knowledge or proof that time is a sensation or experience." Also, another editor responded that he liked the version I mentioned with a caveat. In other words, this is not clear support for your version. If you review all the responses you will see that we have not reached an agreement. In other words, there does not seem to be agreement that time is a sensation or experience. Rather it may be that time is a helpful organizing principle. And this may be because human beings faced that fact that marking time, knowledge of cycles and seasons. and knowing its movements was equated wth survival n the past. For example, to know when winter is coming or when a herd of animals that provide food will come through seems to be based knowing time, cycles, and seasons -- or marking time. So, I reiterate that placing your lede in the article space (at this time) seems to be premature. Also, please read the three paragraphs that I wrote above. Please revert yourself otherwise it causes concern at this time.  Steve Quinn (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that by saying time is a "part of" communicates that we have not finally achieved an acceptable defintion as if "that's what it is". (That would be a historic moment). Steve Quinn (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It may well be appropriate to discuss these deep philosophical questions in the body of the article. I don't think the lead is the place to go into questions of the difference between "sense" and "sensation", between "perception" and "awareness". Neither do I think the lead should adopt the unitary view that there is nothing to time but measurement. We have many sources that say, clearly, that time is a difficult concept. Most also agree that time has both subjective and objective components, though a minority view holds that the word "time" means nothing but "what clocks measure", and that time is an illusion (tea time doubly so). The controversy here is similar to the controversy in consciousness and is unlikely ever to be totally settled. It's a hard subject, and all the lead should do is introduce the main views, but not single out one of those views. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've cited a book that makes what seems to me to be a clear and straightforward statement that time has a subjective component. He also includes the St. Augustine quote. He also cites the old version of the lead from Wikipedia, but does so not as a reference but as a jumping off point, with the emphasis being on the assertion that time is impossible to define. The author has a lot to say on that subject, but one of the things he has to say is that time has both a measurement component and a subjective component. Please note that I am not in any way trying to say that the subjective component of time is not an illusion -- that's too deep a question for the lead.

Because I am reluctant to delete a reference, I've moved the challenged reference to what I hope is a more suitable place, but if anyone still thinks it is inapropo, I have no objection if they remove it. The second flagged reference is clearly in the wrong place, but again I hesitate to delete any reference, so I'm going to leave it alone for now.

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand it may be that time is quite ordinary. For instance, people use time all day to be on time. Hence, it may be simple to express how we relate time in our ordinary everday lives. And I think that is what the original, long standing, four year lede expresses. In addition, it expresses this very well. I believe it is the next sentence after that one which points out that time is controversial. After that controversy is described in one sentence, and further described in the body of the article. I also wish to add that Wikipedia already has philosophy articles on time, so we certainly don't have to worry much about those views that are expressed in those articles. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Vague introduction sentence, Essential questions
The current lede contains an egregious first sentence:
 * "It is difficult to substantiate that time is actually a sensation or experience."

This is not a real lede sentence for an article. We do not start articles with such vague language. We start articles with definitive statements, of the form "[topic] is [this]"

I understand that its not an easy topic to deal with. On the other hand, we use the term everyday in a rather unambiguous way. We don't know exactly what time is, but we know what it means when we use the word.

Since it appears most of us are at a loss for how to proceed, let's start by asking a couple basic but essential questions. First: Second: Let's talk about these two points. They will help us clarify our course. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is time a phenomenon?
 * Is time physical?
 * Are you asking our personal opinions on the matter, or for a sourced consensus of experts on the matter? Because our personal opinions shouldn't be directly relevant (though if you think sharing them will somehow lead to something somehow productive here, please elaborate), and to the best of my knowledge there is no consensus of the experts in available sources. I'm not even sure there's consensus on what those questions mean, much less what their answers are.
 * Just for the heck of it and to illustrate that ambiguity of the questions, I'll state what my opinion is, which tracks I think pretty closely with Kant's opinion, for which I could dig up some sourced quote if we don't have one around already. Time is part of the framework of experience, like space, number, (and here I add to Kant) qualia, substance, and causation. As phenomena are inherently experiential (non-experiential things are "noumena" in Kant's terminology), the concept of time is bound up intricately in what it is to be a phenomenon at all (all phenomena occur in time), but isn't really a phenomenon itself. Likewise, as physical things are inherently phenomenal (i.e. experiential, empirical), time is intricately bound up in what it is to be physical at all, but it isn't a physical thing or process itself. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in question is referenced, and most sources agree that the question is both central and controversial. Some sources say that time has a subjective component, others that time is only measurement and nothing else. The lead should express both of these major views. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Pfhorrest, Im asking peoples views because its utterly clear that peoples views are what is occluding progress in this article.
 * The problem with the experiential view taking priority is that human experience is not the foundation of reality, just as the Earth is not the center of the universe. So to say that is to promote a view that nothing is real, nothing has substance, and physics itself is just some vague kind of abstraction. It would seem then that you would have to substantiate why an old philosophical conjecture should take precedence over the most advanced theories in the science of physics.
 * You wrote: - I think you misunderstand what physics is, and what it means. Physics simply means the study of reality, and all things in it. All real things are physical in some way, and therefore accessible to physical description. If its not real in terms of component particles, then it must be illusion, but even illusions must have some basis in physics. The most interesting idea about time in physics comes about through the holographic principle, which indeed regards all of reality as a kind of projection. But that's far from claiming that human perception is the foundation of the universe. Human perception is the foundation of nothing, except the psychology of the individual. -Stevertigo (t | c) 17:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than argue about the subject, which is not the purpose of talk pages, I will just say that you are being biased to just one of several possible philosophical interpretations of the same physics. Compare, for example, claiming that the Everett interpretation of quantum physics is philosophical nonsense based on misunderstanding the physics, and asserting instead that the Copenhagen interpretation is correct if you understand the physics; when in fact, both Everett and Copenhagen go beyond what the physics itself says, and add an additional philosophical interpretation on top of it. On a broader scope, you are asserting one philosophy of physics to be correct and another to be incorrect (without any disagreement on the actual physics itself), which is biased and thus not NPOV.
 * I will also say that you evidently misunderstand the position to claim to disagree with, because many of the things you here attribute to that position ("nothing is real, nothing has substance, and physics itself is just some vague kind of abstraction") I, and I believe Kant as well, would disagree with; and many of the counter-assertions you make ("Physics simply means the study of reality, and all things in it. All real things are physical in some way, and therefore accessible to physical description") I and possibly Kant would agree with. I am very tempted to go into detail about where your misunderstanding stems from, but again, that is not the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page. A very short statement of clarification I will offer is this: all of the data is objective and independent of any observer, but our only access to it is subjective empirical observation, and things like space and time are necessary parts of any model we could come up with to structure that objective data we subjectively observe; and nothing about any of that is particular to humans per se, but rather part of sentience in general. I will also offer this bit on Kant: he held that his "transcendental idealism", as it is more frequently called, was equivalent to empirical realism, and that that was opposite the position called equivalently transcendental realism or empirical idealism. You seem to be trying to understand the former viewpoint from within the latter viewpoint and understandably getting anti-realist nonsense out of it.
 * Lastly, I was not advocating "the experiential view taking priority", I was merely answering your questions for the sake of illuminating the possible ambiguity of it; neither a straight "yes" or "no" answer to either question seems accurate to a Kantian view like mine. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Pfhorrest, both Everett's interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation are physical theories, meaning they both attempt to offer a real picture, and each of them has stood the test of time in their own way. Everett's interpretation is interesting - his insight was simply that particles lead multiple lives. You wrote - I am not biased towards one particular view in physics. We should all be biased towards scientific explanations over ancient philosophy which roots itself in matters of observation, perception, and subjectivity. And this remains true even if science does not yet have a full picture of time. Relativity, one of our most profound insights into time, did not come out of philosophy, it came out of physics. What would Kant have thought of relativity?


 * You wrote: . - The foundation of most of physics is not "subjective empirical observation," but mathematics, typically of the rigorous, peer reviewed variety. Hence physics is not subjective, its objective, its not empirical, its intuitive, its not observation, its conjecture and then experiment. You wrote: - Well thats the point, time is a real phenomenon and therefore "part[] of any model" regardless of any issues of subjectivity or perception. In fact, according to the holographic model, its space, not time that's the illusion. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The point about Everett and Copenhagen is that the mathematical models of quantum physics and the empirical observations that support those models do not currently decide between them, and furthermore that they do not put anything forward that we could check to decide about them; they take the existing underlying physical theory and add something about "what that means". To accept either is to accept an interpretation of the physics, above and beyond the raw physics itself. Likewise you are doing the same with physics as a whole, saying things about ontology and epistemology and the philosophy of science which the physical theories themselves are silent about; what you are saying is an additional interpretation of what it means for a physical theory to say something and for that something to be correct, etc. You are privileging one interpretation of the scientific results as though they were baked into the results themselves, when they're not. The positions you dismiss as philosophical fluff do not deny anything about the physical theories you are misguidedly trying to defend; they are merely different understandings of the meaning of those theories than the one you seem to think is so obviously correct that to question it is to question the science, rather than your interpretation of it.
 * As to what Kant would have thought of relativity, he probably would have welcomed it as he was generally supportive of the natural sciences and their findings, but that's really speculation. Leibniz -- another philosopher of similar thought, and co-inventor of calculus, as well as the predecessors of symbolic logic, you might note -- would have considered it a vindication of his own position, as his famous arguments with Newton by proxy of Clarke demonstrate. (Newton and Clarke were firm believers in the absoluteness of space as a thing in itself and not just as a relation between objects; Leibniz argued that space was entirely relational, there was no such "thing" as space [although the spatial relations between things were objectively measurable], and there was no "true" frame of reference, only relative ones. Here's a physicist vs a philosopher for you, and who turned out right there, eh?)
 * As for what you write about the nature of physics: honestly and no offense intended, you seem hopelessly confused about what basic terms mean here. Are you honestly arguing that physics is not based on empirical observation, that is is entirely an a priori mathematical activity, that physics is intuitive of all things (and how is intuition in any way objective?), and that experiment furthermore somehow doesn't count as empirical observation? And what do you think happens in peer review, a bunch of men in white coats just decide if they agree with the mathematical models or not, and nobody tries to confirm the observations cited in support of that model? I'm not denying the importance of mathematics in physics or the physical sciences in general, but it's not just sitting in an armchair writing equations until you decide you've figured it out; it's empirical observations (such as experiments), mathematically modeling the patterns in those observations, testing those models against more observations (such as with further experiments), revising the models as necessary, and so on.
 * This is getting really off the topic but I seriously cannot believe what I'm reading here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Newton paragraph
Thanks, JimWae, for fixing the Newton paragraph. It's very clear, now. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Progress?
We seem to be finally moving forward. I've simplified the new lead without (I trust) changing its meaning.

There is a major problem in paragraph three that I hope someone with more knowledge of Newton's vs. Liebnitz's views will fix:

"One view holds that time is neither an event nor a thing ... The opposing view is that time ... is neither an event nor a thing."

You see the problem.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Who is "we" in "We seem to be finally moving forward" besides "you"? Your using the article space to try multiple original versions (instead of presenting them here first) seems to have encouraged others to try their own hands at OR --JimWae (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It may well be there is a subjective component to time, but whether that subjectivity is an expperience, sensation or something else has never been settled. Does "It is difficult to substantiate that time is actually a sensation or experience" assert what time ACTUALLY is or is it rhetorical. At the very least (and this in no way endorses that version), it should be IF or "WHETHER" instead of THAT. ""Feel"" (in scare quotes)<> "experience or sensation"--JimWae (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The other source does NOT say we perceive or experience time itself. IT says "In this wide sense [of perceive], we perceive a variety of temporal aspects of the world." ... NB: "temporal aspects of the world" (such as, particularly, of events). Identifying time WITH an experience is still unsupported by any reference. I believe this is now the SIXTH time I have requested a source for this oversimplified "definition".--JimWae (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can agree with "It is difficult to identify any experience of time itself" BUT starting the article with a difficulty (instead of further down in the lede paragraph) is awkward & unencyclopedic. Why should time not being an empirically observable be the first thing said about it? We do not begin the article about number by saying it is difficult to empirically observe numbers.--JimWae (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, since the version I think moves us forward is not by me, presumably at least one other person agrees. The C class rating (in one case B) suggests the article needs improvement. The endless discussion that goes nowhere encourages me to Be Bold. Your claim that I am indulging in OR is belied by the fact that everything I write is referenced. I have no opinion on this subject. I just want the article to reflect the references. Since the references disagree, I don't see any harm in saying so. I like my first sentence better than the current one, but I'm trying to play nice, instead of rejecting everything anyone tries to do out of hand. I tried putting your first sentence up, but you didn't like that, either. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I expanded the lede sentence for accuracy. However, now it is too long for the lede so I felt it necessary to move it down in the paragraph. Steve Quinn (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also doing some tightening up.  Steve Quinn (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we making progress yet? I think we are. I hope editors don't forget about the problem in the third paragraph, mentioned above. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am rather happy with the current version of the first sentence, which reads as of this writing:
 * I would still prefer a slight rewording of that, as "time is used" sounds strange to my ear. I would write:
 * Or perhaps, slightly longer and redundant but avoiding what I imagine will be contentious use of "that across which" (though I prefer that phrasing to this):
 * Thoughts? --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps, slightly longer and redundant but avoiding what I imagine will be contentious use of "that across which" (though I prefer that phrasing to this):
 * Thoughts? --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the construction "time is that across which" implies that time is real, which is a point of contention. But "time is used" has the same implication. The deeper you dig, the deeper hole you find yourself in. The two main points of view in the literature, put very informally, seem to be a) time is like a line. Clocks measure where on the time line we are.  b) Clocks give us numbers. Time is what we call those numbers, and has no meaning apart from the numbers given by clocks (and other devices). I'm also bothered by the construction "time is used". Wouldn't it be better to say, "People use time"? Ah, well, back to the sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think "...time is used to..." and "...people use time..." are synonymous phrases. Time is used by people everday. Also, it seems that animals use time such as some animals are noctinural hunters and some are not. But with animals that may be on the level of instinct. Steve Quinn (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What I mean is, animals may respond to cues such as daylight or dusk. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as an item of interest, here is how an Encyclopedia Britannica article on Time begins, "TIME, the general term for the conscious experience of duration; i.e. the occurrence of events in sequence, one after another." Rick Norwood (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rick, I checked Encylopedia Britannica online and am unable to confirm your interpretation of what this encyclopedia says on time. Rather this article closely agrees with our current introduction. In a way this makes sense because it seems that using a term such as "conscious experience" is employing vague wording and is difficult to pin down. I mean, a whole article could probably written on the various interpretations of "concious expereince". Steve Quinn (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lede intro
Rick Norwood relayed to us EB's definition of time:
 * "TIME, the general term for the conscious experience of duration; i.e. the occurrence of events in sequence, one after another."

which I used in crafting a new introductory sentence:
 * "Time is the name given to an apparent physical phenomenon by which objects in spacetime are transformed and events appear ordered in sequence from the past to the present and on to the future."

I think this is the general direction we want to go in. Note that by using "apparent" and "appear" we deal to some extent with the perceptual, as that appears to have been a concern among some editors. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I really like the last part of this first sentence ("events appear ordered in sequence from the past to the present and on to the future") but I'm still unsure about the neutrality of "phenomenon" (though I can't think of a better term that doesn't suffer similar or other problems), and the circularity of "objects in spacetime are transformed [by time]". I think we really need some generic phrasing along the lines (though more elegant than this) of that time is something (or other) by or according to or along or across (or whatever) which "events appear ordered in sequence from the past to the present and on to the future".
 * Actually, I kind of like that "according to" phrase. Previous objections to "that along which" were raised against implying temporal realism, but "according to which" would apply just as much to something purely artificial as it would to a real dimension or such.
 * What do people think of this hybrid of the old first sentence, Steve's new addition, and my earlier suggestion: ? --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the more convoluted the first sentence becomes, the less clear it is. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Rick, I wrote the following in the above section, but I decided to move this down here to be sure that you see my reply:
 * I checked Encylopedia Britannica online and am unable to confirm your (Rick's) interpretation of what this encyclopedia says on time. Rather this article closely agrees with our current introduction. In a way this makes sense because it seems that using a term such as "conscious experience" is employing vague wording and is difficult to pin down. I mean, a whole article could probably written on the various interpretations of "concious expereince". Steve Quinn (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My quote was from an older print edition of the Britannica, not the online edition. It was a quote, not an interpretation. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

---
 * Would editors please refrain from putting unsourced pet theories at the very top of the article. This is the same issue that led to one current editor's 1-yr ban.--JimWae (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I am glad it is OK to just swoop in and place a preferred lede at the tippity top of the article (as the anonymous IP just did). I think it is important to participate in the ongoing discussion - unless one is above that sort of thing. We just spent the last week haggling over, editing, and tweaking the lede - for what? An exercise in mental gymnastics? The current lede contains vague wording, and gives undue weight to the concept of "existence". Even dictionary definitions of that word are vaguely worded. They use other vague terminology to describe existence. Also try to obtain a definitive description from the body of philosophical works on the topic and it isn't possible.  Steve Quinn (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Pfhorrest wrote: - Using phrasing like "..is that according to which.." seems a bit convoluted. Articles typically start off with the form [topic] is [this].. or [topic] is a name/term for [this]. is problematic because the concept of "comparison" is abstract, in the same way that any measurement is abstract. We seem to want to stay away from the concept of measurement in the first sentence. gets to the issue of relativism, but IMHO that's too much information for the lede sentence. You said you like the proposed passage "..events appear ordered..," what don't you like about "time is the name given to an apparent physical phenomenon.." and "..by which objects in spacetime are transformed..."? Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, but it seems like any noun we might use is contentious, so I'm trying to avoid saying "Time is a ____ which [list of features]" and skip somehow to a more elegant version of "Time is something, we're not saying what yet, which [list of features]". E.g. instead of "time is a phenomenon which..." or "time is a process which..." or "time is a dimension in which..." or "time is a framework in which..." or "time is a measurement which...", just "time is whatever it is which...". If you have a suggestion for a more elegant phrasing than "Time is that which..." I welcome it; the only other alternatives that come to mind are too conversational in tone, like "Time is something which..."
 * This is tangential, but the latter of these is actually a common error and not proper grammar, unless the subject of the article is the literal term or name, or a quote or saying or something. If the subject is not in quote marks, then it is not a name or term for something, nor does it refer to or mean something; it is that thing named/termed/referred to/meant by the word written there without quotes. See use-mention distinction, or my favorite short demonstration: Cats have four legs and no letters, while "cats" has four letters and no legs.
 * I haven't seen anyone complain about mentioning measurement, merely about biasing the article in favor of views that time is only a measurement. And what is wrong with abstraction? Time is a pretty abstract concept as is. Would you talk about space without comparisons of distances? Either way, this feature of time is not my own proposal, I merely rephrased an earlier version (from "[used to] compare durations of events and intervals between them" to "[according to which] durations of events and intervals between them are compared".)
 * I'm not sure how you see that getting to relativism. Also again not part of my proposal but the earlier version which stood before your edits: I just rephrased "[used to] quantify rates of change [...]" to "[according to which] rates of change [...] are quantified". Though honestly, I would rather write "across which change occurs" and not just talk about quantifying it, but someone above thought that was biased toward a realist POV and so non-neutral.
 * I don't like "the name given to" for the aforementioned use-mention distinction reason; I don't like "physical phenomenon" because that is contentious between notable views on the subject; and I don't like the "spacetime" because it seems circular (defining time in terms of spacetime; unless you wanted to get technical and specify what makes a dimension timelike vs spacelike and define time in those terms, but as you say I think that's a bit much for the first sentence). If we trimmed those bits out, we'd be down to "Time is that by which objects are transformed", which... I'm not entirely sure what that's even supposed to mean. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anyone complain about mentioning measurement, merely about biasing the article in favor of views that time is only a measurement. And what is wrong with abstraction? Time is a pretty abstract concept as is. Would you talk about space without comparisons of distances? Either way, this feature of time is not my own proposal, I merely rephrased an earlier version (from "[used to] compare durations of events and intervals between them" to "[according to which] durations of events and intervals between them are compared".)
 * I'm not sure how you see that getting to relativism. Also again not part of my proposal but the earlier version which stood before your edits: I just rephrased "[used to] quantify rates of change [...]" to "[according to which] rates of change [...] are quantified". Though honestly, I would rather write "across which change occurs" and not just talk about quantifying it, but someone above thought that was biased toward a realist POV and so non-neutral.
 * I don't like "the name given to" for the aforementioned use-mention distinction reason; I don't like "physical phenomenon" because that is contentious between notable views on the subject; and I don't like the "spacetime" because it seems circular (defining time in terms of spacetime; unless you wanted to get technical and specify what makes a dimension timelike vs spacelike and define time in those terms, but as you say I think that's a bit much for the first sentence). If we trimmed those bits out, we'd be down to "Time is that by which objects are transformed", which... I'm not entirely sure what that's even supposed to mean. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like "the name given to" for the aforementioned use-mention distinction reason; I don't like "physical phenomenon" because that is contentious between notable views on the subject; and I don't like the "spacetime" because it seems circular (defining time in terms of spacetime; unless you wanted to get technical and specify what makes a dimension timelike vs spacelike and define time in those terms, but as you say I think that's a bit much for the first sentence). If we trimmed those bits out, we'd be down to "Time is that by which objects are transformed", which... I'm not entirely sure what that's even supposed to mean. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like "the name given to" for the aforementioned use-mention distinction reason; I don't like "physical phenomenon" because that is contentious between notable views on the subject; and I don't like the "spacetime" because it seems circular (defining time in terms of spacetime; unless you wanted to get technical and specify what makes a dimension timelike vs spacelike and define time in those terms, but as you say I think that's a bit much for the first sentence). If we trimmed those bits out, we'd be down to "Time is that by which objects are transformed", which... I'm not entirely sure what that's even supposed to mean. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Per BRD request
I placed tag on this ariticle because the neutrality of this article is being disputed. This is because, as I wrote in the edit history --- this lede represents a single point of view, as did the pared down lede. This sentence is also contradictory which I already said in a previous edit history today. I request that someone please tell me how this sentence does not represent a single point of view and how this sentence is not contradictory (per BRD). Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you please elaborate on what point of view you think it is biased toward and where it is contradictory? Because I don't see those things at all, so I'm not sure where to begin defending that it's not unless you can clarify your criticism further. --Pfhorrest (talk)


 * I hope you don't mind but I decided to make this a new section on the talk (see new section title). Also, I would like to aknowledge User:Pfhorrest's good faith efforts by requesting that we follow BRD in this matter (see edit history).


 * First, with the emphasis on the word "existence" the current lede contains vague wording, and gives undue weight to the concept of "existence". Even dictionary definitions of that word are vaguely worded. They use other vague terminology to describe existence. Also try to obtain a definitive description from the body of philosophical works on the topic and it isn't possible.


 * Next the second half of this sentence -- "irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future" appears to be redundant because it is covered in the very next paragraph, and perhaps said even more succinctly.


 * Third - saying "indefinite continued progress or sequence of existence" is a contradictory statement. But I see that you already noticed that word is not supported by the sources. Kudos. What I was saying earlier -- existence on any time scale is the opposite of indefinite. There is a definite beginning and end to existence for everyone. No one, no animal, no plant, and no tree gets to live forever. Rocks erode. Also, in about 2 or 3 billion years this planet will no longer be habitable because of the life-cycle of the sun. So, on any time scale there is a time limit on existence that is definite or finite.


 * Fourth -- Sorry but even though this sentence may sound good, it appears to be a convulted construction of words. So for these reasons I shortened the lede (see edit history)


 * Fifth -- saying that  "time is" this sentence seems to say that we have nailed the definition of time. The standard 4 year lede does not do that. It makes empirical statements and describes what can be observed. It is an operational definition.


 * Sixth -- we already have philosophical articles related to "time" on Wikipedia so we don't need to worry about covering philosophy in the lede. Please also note that the philosophy is already summed up in part of the four paragraphs of the introduction. Also, these first paragraphs are very different from the Time in physics article. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed reply Steve, and for acknowledging BRD.
 * These issues are true of any topic which has philosophical import. (Note that I am not saying time is exclusively within the domain of philosophy, but that philosophy has notable and relevant things to say about it). Some vagueness is necessary in the ledes of most such subjects, because the first sentence of the lede of an article is supposed to be a definition of the subject of the article, so when definitions are contentious all we can give are what bare bones are not contentious, which is thus necessarily vague. It is best to immediately follow that with an overview of the various disputes to flesh out that vagueness into multiple more precise possibilities, without stating any one as the definition.
 * I concede that, and was planning on writing later tonight about a suggested merger of this new first sentence and what is now the second sentence (along with my earlier suggestions regarding that now-second sentence) to eliminate that redundancy. I don't think that warrants a blanket reversion of the whole thing, though.
 * Ahh, now I see where you're seeing a contradiction (I had no idea what you meant before). However I believe it is based on a misreading, and an unjustified premise. The misreading is that the sentence claims that the existence of some specific things is indefinite; rather, it claims the progress or sequence of various things existing is indefinite, though the various things in that progress or sequence come and go. This is the root of a common quantification fallacy: "at every time there is at least one thing which exists" ≠ "there is at least one thing which exists at every time". However, that aside, the denial of even the latter calls for some justification: who says nothing lasts forever? By our current understanding energy, information, and many other conserved quantities are considered to exist indefinitely. Either way though, it would as be biased for the article to state in its own voice that some things (or the progression of things) do last forever, as it would so state the negation thereof, and the sources don't say "indefinite" anywhere so lets strike that word and move on.
 * I don't see what is convoluted about it. Can you be more specific?
 * See above about how ledes are supposed to begin with definitions, but that on contentious topics we have to keep those definitions from being too specific, to maintain NPOV. The article should begin with "Time is...", but we have to be very careful about what we put immediately after that, precisely to avoid suggesting that there is more consensus ("we've nailed the definition") than there really is.
 * This article is neither entirely philosophical nor physical in scope, so while it touches on both, the lede needs to respect both. You could just as well say that we already have Time in physics so there's no need to worry about covering physics in the lede here.
 * The anon IP's edits draw on dictionary definitions, which seems like a good place to start for a broad and general definition without getting too deep into more specific definitions from physics or philosophy. I don't think it is perfect as it stands, but it is a good addition that needs to be integrated into the existing text (along with other suggestions under discussion here on the talk page), not reverted entirely. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pfhorrest, I am impressed with all of your responses here. It seems that you are well versed in your knowledge areas. I really had no idea. Anyway, I will get back to you later. In the meantime go ahead and edit as you see fit. In other words, if this discussion isn't progressing right away - don't let it stop you. I'll be back eventually. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Steve. I didn't get a chance to talk about my suggested integration last night, something came up with a friend, but I'll try to get to that tonight. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See above about how ledes are supposed to begin with definitions, but that on contentious topics we have to keep those definitions from being too specific, to maintain NPOV. The article should begin with "Time is...", but we have to be very careful about what we put immediately after that, precisely to avoid suggesting that there is more consensus ("we've nailed the definition") than there really is.
 * This article is neither entirely philosophical nor physical in scope, so while it touches on both, the lede needs to respect both. You could just as well say that we already have Time in physics so there's no need to worry about covering physics in the lede here.
 * The anon IP's edits draw on dictionary definitions, which seems like a good place to start for a broad and general definition without getting too deep into more specific definitions from physics or philosophy. I don't think it is perfect as it stands, but it is a good addition that needs to be integrated into the existing text (along with other suggestions under discussion here on the talk page), not reverted entirely. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pfhorrest, I am impressed with all of your responses here. It seems that you are well versed in your knowledge areas. I really had no idea. Anyway, I will get back to you later. In the meantime go ahead and edit as you see fit. In other words, if this discussion isn't progressing right away - don't let it stop you. I'll be back eventually. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Steve. I didn't get a chance to talk about my suggested integration last night, something came up with a friend, but I'll try to get to that tonight. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Steve. I didn't get a chance to talk about my suggested integration last night, something came up with a friend, but I'll try to get to that tonight. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we having fun yet?
It seems to me that the lead is getting worse, not better, with no consensus in sight, and that some of the people on this talk page are getting just a wee bit testy. Please avoid personal remarks and personal opinions, and compare and contrast reliable sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * -- Thanks for the good thoughts, Rick-- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me we already have plenty of references, with quotations, and that all that is needed is for someone to paraphrase what the major references say. I'd be willing to try it. I'd be willing to support anyone else who tried it. But I hesitate to try, there have been so many reverts. Maybe it will be better just to wait until things settle down. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Most recent edit
I plan on reverting Steve Quinn's recent edit, but I wanted to discuss that here first.

First, he has qualified the first sentence so it now reads, "Time...appears related to the continued progression..." This is unnecessarily vague and essentially meaningless. Anything may "appear related to" anything else. The word "time" is used to describe the "progression of events", not just in some vague and unspecified way "related to" the progression of events.

Second, he has restored to the sentence "The operational definition leaves aside the question of whether there is something called time, apart from the counting activity just mentioned." the phrase "that flows and can be measured." But the operational definition defines time as that which can be measured, so the tail of the sentence contradicts its beginning. Does measuring something leave aside the question of whether something is being measured?

Edits should reflect what the references say.

Rick Norwood (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with this and approve of reverting that edit. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Aside from the repeated questioning of the MEANING of "continued progression of existence and events", there STILL is no sourcing for "continued progression of existence and events" (even though a NEAR match has been available for years - but ONLY from ONE of the many sources). "Progression" indicates movement towards a goal or movement (or "unfolding") according to some underlying principle. What the IP "intends" by "progression" is not relevant - what counts is how the reader might reasonably interpret it. "Succession" or "sequence" would be better (but not best). It appears that taking this one word at a time will take several years when nearly every modification gets reverted by the IP. I see above a preference for poetic expression over clarity. Time is not identical to the succession of events & any such statement is an oversimplification - as demonstrated by the many sources that do not state such. A succession of events is but one aspect of time as a dimension. --JimWae (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Jim, several other people here have stated that they understand what is meant by "progress" (or "progression" or "succession" or "sequence" or "order) and approved of that language, so it's not just a matter of the anon meaning one thing and everybody else being confused. You also seem to be the only person still insisting that "progress" has to mean something like "improvement" and not just "passing by" or "coming and going", when in fact the "improvement" sense is a later development and the "going on" sense is the earlier, core meaning (very much like with "succeed" and "succession"). But as I've said repeatedly I'm not attached to that word in general and several synonyms would work fine by me.
 * With regards to [progression of] "existence", I think basically everyone has agreed to strike that (except the anon IP himself), so no need to continue beating that horse, it's dead already.
 * As for the other aspects of time, if you will read both what's presently in the article and what we're discussing here, there is still a second sentence describing all the other aspects that were in the previous first sentence (measures of durations and intervals and rates of changes), and we are working on incorporating that into the first sentence, so we are not planning on stating just that "time is a progression of events", but also that it is "a measure" of durations, intervals, and rates of change. And we will of course keep the sources for that which are currently attached to the second sentence.
 * Nobody seems to be going with the one-word-a-day idea anyway, so I'm going to be bold and take both Steves' words of support above to stick the latest draft of our new sentence in the lede, for now, since that already addresses some of the points you keep bringing up that everybody agrees with. I am by no means pushing this as the permanent final lede and expect we will continue to discuss and change and refine it here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the current first sentence except for the quotation marks. Is this a direct quote from one of the many references?  If so, isn't that against Wikipedia policy? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Now the open quotation marks are gone, but the end quotes remain, obviously an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The quotation marks were a copy/paste error. Fixed now. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Pfhorrest.


 * Jim Wae requests a citation for "Time is the continuing progression of events...". Citations are already given for "A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession..." and "a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future."  I would appreciate it if Jim Wae would explain his objection. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think his objection was to "continuing progression of events" specifically, so I added a link to the ref we already had at the end of that sentence, which says "continued progress of existence and events". I think "continu[ing] progress[ion] of [...] events" is a close enough phrasing to that for that reference to back it. The reference formatting for this lede will really need to be cleaned up once we've got the substance of it all sorted out. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Rick, let's just say I was trying to be helpful, and (per sources) I don't agree with what you are saying. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rick, can you refer me to the sources that you are talking about? Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever several people here agree that "progression" means, its dictionary meanings carry a dependency on either the future or the past - either towards a future goal, or from a past state. A succession of events does not depend on the events having a linked history. (Though time is a factor in causality, causality is not necessarily a part of a sequence of events -- nor of time.) The link is to sequence, not progression. If sequence is the better link, it is the better word choice.--JimWae (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, "progression of events" requires explanation, or is just poetry - something "sequence" is not. "Progression of events" also has the least number of sources - AND that one source also says "progress".--JimWae (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow why you object to "progression" in a sense dependent on "future" and "past"; that's sort of the point we're going for, that time is whatever separates events out into various degrees of pastness and futureness, putting them in a row, in sequence, in order, in series, in a succession or progression of things one after another, instead of all lumped together in the present. Do you object to that intended meaning, or just the way of saying it? I thought you were just complaining about "goals" in some sort of teleological, normative sense, that "progression" implied that things were getting "better" in some sense, and the dictionary definition of "progression" is certainly not limited to that. Not anything about causation or linked history, so I'm not sure what your point is there. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * JimWae wrote:
 * "A succession of events does not depend on the events having a linked history.
 * I think that's exactly what a succession of events means. One thing must lead to the other.
 * JW: "Though time is a factor in causality, causality is not necessarily a part of a sequence of events -- nor of time."
 * Its generally understood that determinism is not absolute, as everything would just persist in the same state and never actually change. But there is still a concept of determinism which is valid, just not absolute, after all a particle in one instant must persist in some way on into the next, and do so in some ordered way, but that particle must still have some degrees of freedom which allow it to do things which are not absolutely bound to the previous instance.


 * I don't think "progression" or "progression of events" is ambiguous or inaccurate, in fact it may be better than "sequence," as "sequence" seems to imply some rather absolute kind of determinism. In a sequence, the deterministic order is already presupposed, and one is just tracing through the that order... in sequence. In a "progression" one never knows the exact future, just that the future is imminent. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) I do not think anybody has ever offered "time is what keeps everything from happening at once" as a definition - perhaps as some kind of nifty saying, tho'
 * 2) Putting my birth and some stranger's birth in temporal sequence does not imply determinism. Stating there is a "progression" from one birth to the other does suggest more than a sequence. --JimWae (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a little uncertain of the wording "Some simple definitions..." and paused a moment to think up something better but decided to save that for later. Other suggested phrases to introduce those two quotes are welcomed by me.
 * If I set out to do a bunch of unrelated errands today, make a list in no particular order, and then go about crossing things off that list, would you not say I am progressing through my list of errands? Going to the bank didn't depend on my doing the laundry and wasn't caused by it in any way, I just did one after the other, and so progressed from one on to the other. What more to you think "progression" implies, and why? --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Anon IP's first sentence
Here are the three primary definitions of time in 3 prominent English language dictionaries:


 * American Heritage Dictionary
 * also thefreedictionary.com
 * 1a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
 * 1b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration:a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
 * 1c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval:ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
 * 1d. 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.
 * 1e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned:solar time.


 * Merriam-Webster Dictionary (also the same as Random House dictionary)
 * 1a. the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration
 * 1b. a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future


 * Oxford English Dictionary (from Compact OED © 1971)
 * 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.

This is being used, by me, as an authoritative source so that this is simply no one's particular POV. Being that these are general dictionaries, the only POV that you can accuse these definitions as having is the "English language" POV. AH and OED live on opposite sides of the pond and MW is an old standard.

Now there are two grosser POVs to represent, and of one of these POVs, there are two sub-POVs to consider:


 * Time as phenomenon or concept like space or spacetime or cosmos or life or consciousness or God or some other "big idea" like that.


 * Time as a quantity of measurement like length or mass or electric charge or temperature or some "operational definition" like that.
 * Of the operational or measurement POV, there is another split. Measurement with regard to physical systems (more objective) and measurement with respect to experience of a human or some other conscious being (more subjective, time being something we "feel").  The reason that these are two sides of the same coin is that all clocks or rulers or voltmeters are really just extensions of our senses or our experiential measurement of these quantities.  We gauge how big a bug is or another person or a building or a mountain, with respect to how big it appears alongside us.  We have an experiential measure of this quantity called size without a meter stick.  Similarly we have an experiential measure of time without external clocks.  But both our experience of this measurement or our usage of a measuring device (a clock) is acting on the same quantity.  It's just that our bare-handed biological, experiential measure might not be as tight as the one using a 133Cs clock.

Time as phenomenon is a perspective that is both differentiated from the Time as measurement perspective and solidly supported by the English language dictionaries. Leaving it out of the lede is not NPOV. In addition, it is more fundamental. During the first million years of the existence of the Universe there were certainly no sentient beings around to be experiencing or measuring time, but time existed. There were physical processes going on that had quantitative relationships with each other and with time. There was an x(t) and there was a t, and no one was around measuring it. Let's not get into any stupid Tree-falling-in-the-forest-with-no-one-around-to-hear-it,-does-it-make-a-sound? baloney. Of course it did. Time has been around a lot earlier than there had been anyone in the Universe measuring anything, including time.

That's your opinion, Steve Quinn, but you are mistaken.

Steve is also mistaken here. While it is not about philosophy as a scholarly exercise, there is a reason why the Dewey decimal system begins with philosophy as the "100s" section and why engineering profs and physics and mathematics and sociology and humanities or literature terminal degrees are all Ph.D. Everything is about philosophy.

This is a perfect example of crappy thinking. Of POV thinking. Steve is saying that something that is works in the sciences is also does in ordinary life. "Operational definition" is clearly from the POV of science, and if you take that far enough, from the POV of experimental science. It's a POV and certainly not the only POV and not a neutral POV. It is a POV of a subset of the human experience. That is why it comes in secondary.

JimWae, this is laughable. You are saying words like "indefinite" are convoluted and vague, yet in the lede paragraph you have wording like "In addition, the temporal position of events with respect to the transitory present is continually changing;". I mean WTF does that mean? "Temporal" or "transitory" are the common words that Bubba and JimBob and SallyMae are using, but "indefinite" is convoluted? You're being silly. Yes, let's put the lede definition in the simpler terms to present the concept of time. But it's apparent that you don't know how to do it because you don't seem to know what "simpler terms" really are.

Someone else said (but I can't find it) that this should not be about what "time" means to academics but what it commonly means to ordinary people. I fully agree with that. No lede definition of time that does not have something about time occurring in an apparently irreversible direction from the past through the present to the future is not about how the average Joe thinks about time. The average Joe thinks about what has happened in his past, what is happening now, and what he might expect to happen in the future. The dictionaries see this and to leave it out is not NPOV.

Time is about the existence of things, about us and other things in the Universe. The OED supports that. Time is apparently unidirectional as we (and anything that is not an antiparticle) commonly experiences it. In addition, it's single-dimensional (unlike space) so, the common understanding of time is that time progresses in one direction. One event happens after another in an ordered sequence that can be placed on the real number line. Just like "greater than" > and "less than" < have meaning with real numbers, "earlier" or "previous" and "later" or "subsequent" have comparable meaning with respect to time.

Some complained about indefinite. Time as this fundamental phenomenon is considered to be indefinite, in our common ordinary experience, in both directions; for every moment of time you identify, there is a moment that precedes it and another moment that succeeds this given moment. But we know now that some 13.7 billion years ago that might not be true regarding the Big bang. Present thinking is that time and space both had origin with the big bang, so if you define that event as t=0, then there may very well be no moments with negative t. So there's a definite limit of time in the past direction. But there is no known limit in the future direction. For every moment, from the BB onward, there is a moment that follows. That is, by definition, indefinite. It has to be bounded on both sides for "indefinite" not to apply.

So, in two sentences, all three major POVs are comprehensively (not exhaustively) introduced. We have Time as phenomenon, the fundamental definition, first with "past", "present" and "future". This can be footnoted for a cutey and simple definition from John Wheeler: "Time is what prevents everything from happening at once." (along with "Space is what prevents everything from happening to me.") Then we have Time as measurement or the "operational definition", both regarding the physical systems and regarding the human (or sentient) experience (we can measure the duration of something or we can guess how long it was from our experiencing it). And we can footnote that with the statement from Einstein that "Time is what clocks measure." Although not as comprehensive, both cited statements express, in a nutshell, what time is thought of fundamentally and what time is as a measurement. They're good.

Also, rate of change of a quantity is directly related to and a consequence of time. It is simply the reciprocal of time, 1/t, or frequency. It belongs in the measurement sentence. It is often how time is measured or experienced.

The more fundamental POV of time is that of Wheeler and the more operational POV is that of Einstein. We can get the key concepts down with two concise sentences:


 * Time is the indefinite continued progression 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 various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience.

Now, I don't have infinite time to work on this, so I am asking that you justify how any other two-sentence lede is as or more comprehensive or concise as this. Or more accurate. If you fire out a phalanx of nit-picks, I will answer each one clearly and sequentially. Steve and Jim object to answering each question immediately after the question. It's a silly objection and inefficient alternative, which means I have to copy their question and put it in green and italics, and then answer it, but that's what we'll do. In return, I ask that assertions of opinion are not couched as statement of fact which is mostly what a particular editor believes. Steve, you can avoid that pitfall by preceding opinions with "I think..." or "I believe..." or "I prefer...". Please let's do this important article some justice and not fart around. Oh, BTW, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004, not as long as User:Stevertigo. I know my way around here. Please don't patronize me. And thanks for your observations, Pfhorrest, both here and at the AN/I.

70.109.182.232 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As you know, I am generally supportive of your proposed addition, but there are some points on it I would like to critique.
 * "Indefinite" I object to because, while the contemporary scientific consensus holds that time had a definite beginning and probably will have no end, there are also serious alternative proposals that time may have an end, be it in a Big Crunch (where time becomes meaningless in a singularity) or a Heat Death (where time becomes meaningless because with no entropy gradient there is no arrow of time), and there are of course non-scientific views which hold time to have some kind of supernatural beginning and a pending supernatural end, or which hold time to be circular in some fashion or another. I'm not advocating giving any of these undue weight, but removing "indefinite" doesn't hurt the sentence as it stands, as it's not integral to time being time, and it gives these alternative positions a little breathing room.
 * "Continued" I changed to "continuous" because it sounds better, but now that I think about it that may not be neutral enough because time may be discrete. I'm not sure that "continued" really adds anything to the sentence though, similar to "indefinite", so I might suggest striking it as well.
 * I don't have a strong objection to "progress", but since you link to sequence already I think perhaps it might be good to change it to "sequence", which might allow us to integrate the first part of the next sentence into this sentence as well.
 * I also don't have a strong objection to "existence", but its meaning is a little vague (as shown in part by Steve Quinn's confusion, but I'm also a little unclear on what "progress of existence" would mean, without the context of this discussion and reading the source definitions). I think "events" is sufficient, and "existence" again doesn't add much, and might stir further conflict, so I think leaving it out could be useful.
 * I just want to comment at this point that I like your use of "apparently" here to qualify "irreversible", good preservation of NPOV there.
 * And, like Stevertigo's edits, I like your use of "from the past through the present to the future", which I think really gets at the heart of the common lay concept of time, much like "from the ground to the sky" might capture the concept of elevation.
 * I think the first part of the next sentence can be merged pretty seamlessly into what remains of your sentence now at this point:
 * "Time is the sequence of events occurring in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future...".
 * I would trim down the middle portion of the next sentence to go after a comma and continue this sentence:
 * "...and a measurement of the durations of those events, the intervals between them, and the rates of changes occurring in them."
 * The last bit you added on to the existing second sentence in your proposal here, "in material reality or in the conscious experience", sounds a little unprofessionally worded to my ear, but a better way of putting it doesn't come to mind. I think it can also be omitted, because those two things are jointly exhaustive, though not necessarily mutually exclusive, so if we say nothing readers can tacitly infer that it may be one or the other or both. Neutrality can sometimes be better accomplished by not asserting anything than by asserting an exhaustive disjunction.
 * So to recap, I am proposing the first two sentences be merged into:
 * "Time is the sequence of events occurring in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future, and a measurement of the durations of those events, the intervals between them, and the rates of changes occurring in them."
 * To expand on the "time is what clocks measure" definition, this would be saying, in effect, that time is the ticking of a clock from one moment to the next and on, and a measure of the duration of each pendulum swing, the intervals between each tick, and the speed at which the hand goes around; but generalized to any sequence of events, not just a sequence of clock ticks.
 * Thoughts, everyone? --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Time has a definite beginning, but it's end is still indefinite. Time has to be bounded on both ends for it to not be indefinite.  The likelihood of a Big crunch is low after discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe, even with the heat death, although entropy of the Universe as a whole discontinues increasing in time, there is still time.  On a microscopic level, molecules are still bouncing around in time, although there is no temperature gradient and no work can be done.  Doesn't mean that marks a definite end of time.  From the lay perspective (remember, this is not Time in physics), time is indefinite, and as far as science knows the lay perspective continues to be correct for time in the future, but not in the past.  But it has to be bounded on both ends to not be "indefinite".
 * The word "apparent" is not from my NPOV, but it's in the dictionary. Of course, there are physical theories of anti-particles or some process (string theory?) that goes in the other direction, but from the lay perspective and in the POV of 99.999999% of applied of theoretical physical science, time is unidirectional.  Nobody is going back in time.
 * I dunno what the problem with "existence" is. It's in the OED principal definition.  "Time" (as well as "space") are clearly inextricably linked with the concept of existence.  Other than religious concepts (like God), I cannot think of a single thing that does not exist in time (and the religious perspective is certainly not NPOV).  Certainly, in the lay perspective, time and existence are directly related.  Thus goes the Wheeler quote.
 * Again, the intent, to be "professionally" worded is to be as comprehensive and as concise as possible. The second sentence in my proposed lede should replace the current second sentence.  Again, we have an apparent dichotomy with Time as phenomenon (the "philosophical" perspective) and Time as measurement (the "operational" perspective).  Both of these POVs are very important and both need to be way up there in the lede.  But they're different and should be in different sentences, both for clarity of concept and to avoid run-on sentences.  Time as phenomenon is more fundamental.  Two dictionaries list it first (the OED doesn't even put the "measurement" definition in its primary def).  Then right away, there should be the measurement definition.  I am still convinced that the second sentence I proposed is far clearer than the existing second sentence.  Now, in that measurement POV there is the measurement of time by counting "periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (and one end of the measurement spectrum) and there is the measurement of time by someone saying "She came by here about a half hour ago".  Both are measurements and both are measuring the same thing.  Not only is there (as far as we know) a difference in precision or accuracy of the two measurement, they occur in different domains, one is in the physical domain (something we do with clocks) and the other exists in the consciousness of a sentient being.  Now, the materialists would say that this consciousness and sentience is merely a consequence or example of biological and physical processes in the brain: the clock in our heads is not much different from the 133Cs clock qualitatively, but simply is less precise, less accurate, less reliable, less robust.  Fine, but that is the materialist POV, not NPOV.  That's why time (as a measurement) exists both "in material reality [and] in the conscious experience".
 * That second sentence easily beats the current sentence in meaning, clarity, and in presenting both material and experiential POVs about the measurement of time. Also the third sentence is abysmal.  But that can be left for another day.  My forensic assertion is still, no other proposal is as concise and comprehensive (again, not exhaustive) as these two sentences.  We need to set up the article regarding time as phenomenon, time as measurement, and time in our experience.  We need to do that in two sentences (not one long run-on sentence).  In my opinion the Wheeler quote and the Einstein quote should be associated with these two broad POVs of time as footnotes. 71.169.190.194 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding "indefinite", you seem to be saying that by our current understanding of physics and in some lay definition, time is considered to be endless, and therefore we should assert in the article that it is, thus, indefinite. The counterpoint I was making is that omitting the word "indefinite" doesn't contradict that (admittedly majority) point of view, it simply doesn't assert it over other (admittedly minority) points of view, and so it is more neutral just not to mention it at all. Sometimes less is more,
 * Regarding "apparently", I was paying you a compliment. I see now that that wasn't your doing and so the compliment is unwarranted, but it sounds like you think I was criticizing you, and I want to be clear that I'm not. (Although below we are discussing way of changing "irreversible" to something else that makes the point that the past and the future are different -- that time is anisotropic -- without implying that it is irreversible per se, and thus allowing us to eliminate the "apparently" qualifier needed there).
 * Regarding "existence', as I said my objection is not strong, but I don't think it adds much beyond what "events" already has, and I can see it being confusing. I gather the meaning you're going for is "things continuing to exist", not any sense of "existence" as a synonym for "reality" or "the universe", right? That is the confusion that I foresee possible (people thinking it means the latter). And even without that, it's not clear to me what a progression (or sequence or order or succession) "of existence" means, while "of events" is obvious.
 * Regarding "in material reality or in the conscious experience", I don't object to discussing that (apparent) dichotomy somewhere in the lede (and there's more than just one POV in which it's not a dichotomy at all; besides materialists holding consciousness to be a material phenomenon, phenomenalists hold material reality to be a thing in the conscious experience, and it's possible to hold to both at once). I just don't think it needs to be in the definition, and like with "indefinite" above, saying nothing at all isn't biased toward either. Less is more again.
 * Regarding the Wheeler and Einstein quotes, as I say below I like both of them very much and would like our definition here to be a "less-cutesy" way of saying basically the same thing. Time is whatever keeps events in sequence (or order or succession or progression) instead of happening all at once together (ala Wheeler), and it is whatever we're measuring (as with a clock) when we measure their durations or the intervals between them or rates of changes in them (ala Einstein). --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Pf, I knew that you were paying me a compliment regarding that, but I didn't want to accept such payment when all I was doing was copying out of the dictionary. I do want to point out to SQ, JW and such that one can stand on NPOV with much more confidence when they rely on the dictionary definitions instead of their own opinions.  Unless you think you're a lexicographer, relying on the dictionary immunizes yourself from charges of POV.
 * Now that it looks like some reform is gonna stick, I am much less unsatisfied than I was when I came upon the article back in June or whenever. But it is clunky, designed by committee.  I had hoped that enough of you guys would understand the importance of defining time, on the outset, as these two different (and not really competing) definitions, first as a phenomenon (where I drew every word out of the dictionary references, including "indefinite" and "existence", etc.) and then as a measurement (what Steve Quinn likes to call the "operational" definition).  And I had hoped that, because measurement is done both with clocks we build (to measure time in material reality) and with our conscious experience (which is debated among philosophers and lay people as to whether or not that is contained in material reality or is somehow different) that you guys (with the exceptions of SQ and JW) would see the wisdom of not jamming them together in a run-on sentence and see the wisdom of setting up the topic in all three major POVs: Time as phenomenon, Time as physical measurement, Time as experience right away in two lede sentences.  Everything else in the article will fall under one of those three; "religion, philosophy, and science... business, industry, sports, the sciences, music, dance, and the live theater".  I am convinced that the professor would grade my lede definition higher than what is there now, and far better than what was there before.  Too bad.  But the status quo isn't better than what existed before and since I was unsuccessful (even though everything is solidly referenced) in convincing you, I'll let it go.  Unless SQ or JW try to crap up the lede again, then I'll be back, and the rest of us also should be vigilant.  Maybe someday, this will be a good article.  But no matter how well the rest of the article is done, if the lede is crappy, the article as a whole cannot be "good".
 * Bestest, 70.109.183.229 (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

break
There is so much that needs to be said about issues involving "progress of existence and events" & the manner in which edits have been made to the top of the article, that it is hard to know where to begin. And such a wall of text today that many good ideas will be hard to find again. I will try to be succint. First, many specific objections to "progress of existence and events" had ALREADY been raised in this 2012-JUL-02 edit, the format of which the IP terribly mangled (later restored by Steve Quinn), but has never sufficiently addressed. To repeat the ones still relevant
 * Problems with "progress of existence and events"
 * 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 either "sequence of existence" or "progress of existence" mean?

Additionally:
 * 1) Nearly every referenced source mentions intervals and durations. The IP's edit does not.
 * 2) Very few referenced sources even mention "existence", much less "progress of existence"
 * 3) Furthermore, the single source that mentions "progress of existence and events" is not even used as a citation for that sentence. How does this indicate any editor's concern about properly sourcing the text?
 * 4) Most dictionaries present multiple defintions of time as a noun. Selecting just the one that has "progress of existence and events" is not only cherry-picking but lacks comprehensiveness. Time is not identical with the sequence of events. Rather, sequencing is one aspect of the concept of time. Other aspects are durations and intervals - both of which ARE quantified (numerically or otherwise) and CAN BE measured (numerically or otherwise). Measurement even applies to sequencing when events are assigned positions on a timeline. (re Pfforests's merge proposal above: nor IS time the measurement of durations and intervals)
 * Regarding the earlier first paragraph, relegated to the 2nd paragraph by the IP's edit
 * 1) The objection that the article said time was ONLY a measurement was never valid.
 * 2) It is certainly a valid point to say that not everything about time is about quantification. Sequencing need not involve quantification - although quantification and measuement are necessary to establish sequence when the events occur very far apart. Time is, thus, a component of the measuring system in establishing a sequence for such events.
 * 3) The lede had already been edited to remove measurement from the first sentence
 * 4) Further, our lede says that "defining it in a manner applicable to all fields of study without circularity has consistently eluded scholars". Yet many editors have repeatedly presented their pet ideas as THE definition. Who among us thinks the problem has been solved?


 * Regarding "succession from the past through the present to the future"
 * 1) The lede already contains "the temporal position of events with respect to the transitory present is continually changing; events happen, then are located further and further in the past"
 * 2) Although the above does not mention the future, keep in mind that talk of future events (as if they already "exist" or that statements about them are already true or false) is problematic.
 * 3) What does it really mean to say "continuous progress of existence and events... in... succession from the past through the present to the future"? Events, if they indeed "move" through time at all, do not move from the past to the future - but rather (if we were to accept this kind of talk [and I, for one, do not] from the future, through the present, and into the past.
 * Regarding the lede that has been here for 4-yrs
 * 1) Objections that it limited time to measurement have been met by minor change in the wording
 * 2) In what way is the present lede sentence an inmprovement over what was there? It reduces the context to sequence while adding some vague terminolgy with "progress of existence and events"
 * 3) Operational definitions are not limited to the sciences. When something cannot be defined in simpler terms without circularity, an operational definition is applicable and acceptable.
 * 4) Some editors have introduced and defended so many alternate versions that one begins to wonder if they would defend anything as long as it was not substantially the same as the 4-yr lede

There seems to be general agreement that the present 1st sentence will not survive. Some of the above applies also to Pfhorrest's latest proposed merge above. I propose that, per WP:BRD, the lede be returned to what it was before the IP put his ideas at the very top - substantially what it had been for 4 yrs - until a BETTER wording has been agreed on. Nothing that has been presented has been agreed to be better AND objections to it have already been met. It remains the standard against which amendments are compared. Enough for now. --JimWae (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On the subject of "progress", I believe the anon IP meant it not in any sense of "improvement" as you seem to infer, but in a mere sense of "passing-by"; "progression" might have been a better term. As I said above, I approve of changing it to "sequence" if that's what we're linking to, although I do admit that when writing my proposed changes I was tempted to go with "progression" because "the sequence of events" strikes my ear as odd even knowing what is meant by it (what comes to mind is "can't there by many sequences of events? which one is the sequence?"), and it sounds more natural to say "the progression of events" (i.e. the coming and going of them in some kind of sequential order). But in general on this point, no contest.
 * The anon's edit didn't remove the mention of durations and intervals, which are still there in the next sentence (which as above I believe need to be merged with this one).
 * No contest regarding striking "existence". As above, I think some objections to it are overblown, but it doesn't really add anything and isn't really clear, so is fine to go.
 * On that last point, perhaps the word "measure" would be better than "measurement". I didn't mean to write it as "time is the act of measuring", but "time is what is measured". Consider an analogous phrasing, "courage is the measure of a man", meaning "to measure how much of a man someone is, measure their courage". So time is whatever it is you are measuring to measure a duration or interval or rate. Similarly with "sequence", for the reasons I hinted at just above: "the sequence of events" can sound like it is referring to the set of events which are in that sequence, but seems intended to refer to (for lack of a better word) their sequentiality itself, what they are in sequence of, which is time. Both of these mesh with my earlier suggestion of writing "according to which" (or "across which" or "against which", but I think you were the one who said those bias toward realism): time is whatever events are sequenced against or across or according to, whatever durations and intervals and rates are measured against or across or according to. I think coming up with a neutral way of phrasing this is the core of our problem here.
 * The objection about the old phrasing sounding like time was just a measurement sounds valid to me. Meters and kilograms and seconds are components of a measurement system; length and mass and time are what those are measures of. The old phrasing seemed to conflate the measurement with the measured, the map with the territory.
 * As far as editors pushing their pet views despite the lack of (professional, scholarly) consensus, I agree completely, and that's my main interest here, preserving neutrality. I'm trying to watch out even for viewpoints I disagree with. My personal view on time is highly technical and barely resembles anything that's been written here so far; I'm just trying to capture what different views of time have in common without stepping on any of their toes.
 * "the temporal position of events with respect to the transitory present is continually changing; events happen, then are located further and further in the past" sounds like a way less accessible way of saying "from the past, through the present, to the future". I think that latter phrase, while really circular and vacuous if you drill into it, really captures the most general common sense of time, like (as I said above) "from the ground to the sky" captures the essence of the concept "elevation".
 * As for the language of events moving through time, I agree that that is nonsense to begin with, but I don't believe that's what the anon is saying here at all. He's not talking about events moving from the past through the present to the future, but about the order of the sequence of events being past to present to future: past events are earlier in the sequence, future ones are later. Using the elevation analogy again, it's like saying "elevation is the sequence of heights, from down on the ground to up in the sky; and a measure of how tall things are..." etc. Height is a useful analogy because it's another anisotropic dimension like time, unlike e.g. lateral distance.
 * Operational definitions are useful for people needing to just agree on the meaning of words and move on to do something with whatever they mean by whatever words; be that science or otherwise. However, they can circumvent the neutrality of reporting what something really is when that is a contentious issue; we can't just decide (or take some particular source's decision) that the term means something, when that blanketly makes others wrong by definition.
 * As for BRD and reverting, by my count I see you, Steve Quinn, and maybe Rick Norwood opposed to it, and Stevertigo and myself in various degrees of agreement with intent to improve it, and of course the anon IP approves of his own edits. I think that sums up the involved editors, no? So it doesn't look anything like a consensus that it will not survive to me. Also, you all have been continuing to make edits to the lede (sometimes drastic, I'm looking at both Steves) despite what should have been a hiatus of editing if we were on the D step of BRD, in which case it's only fair that others can work on this other angle as well. I like Rick Norwood's idea (in his latest edit) of tackling the disagreement one word at a time. I say lets give 24hrs for each word change to be contested before moving on to the next one otherwise (i.e. if nobody complains about your removal of "progress" in a day, then tomorrow we move on to another change). Sound good?

--Pfhorrest (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The anon IP (apparently an 8 year editor) makes some good points, the most essential of which is the term used in at least three dicdefs, namely "continuum." One dicdef refers to time as a "nonspatial continuum." And JimWae is right in critiquing your (Pfhorrest) introductory sentence in a couple of ways - the one which instantaneously stands out to me is the point that time is not "[a] sequence." And in any case, the use of both "sequence" and "succession" in the same phrase is undernecessary. I tend to find much agreement with the IPs points. Pfhorrest's version reads:
 * This IMHO tries to do way too much in just one sentence. Let's keep it simple: Time is a physical continuum/phenomenon... in which events are/appear ordered.. You said you liked the "events are ordered" part from my version, why not keep it? Note the essential concept there is "order" - that gives us an extremely good clue as to what time really is - the fact that objects can change only according to certain degrees of freedom, and not others - and of course the fact that things are preserved by time and not just destroyed by it, as some random phenomenon would do. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I still object to the "physical continuum/phenomenon" on neutrality grounds already mentioned, but your substitution of "[a]" for "the" draws attention to a point I was making in response to JimWae above: "sequence of events" too easily sounds like it is referring to a set of sequential events, when what I believe the anon intended by "progress" (which we're suggesting changing to "sequence") is... actually you give a great synonym for it right here, "order". "Time is the order of events...", or what events are ordered by. It is not the events themselves, which happen to be grouped in some order or sequence or progression; it is the order or sequence or progression of them, what they are ordered, or are sequenced, or progress, by. I would be happy substituting "order" for "sequence". Although as you point out "succession" is redundant as well, so it seems like we could shorten that first clause to "Time is the apparently irreversible succession of events from past through the present to the future..." Substituting "order" for "succession" in that would be alright by me too, though I kind of like the sound of "succession".
 * On a different note, it strikes me that "anisotropic" more directly gets to the point I believe "irreversible" is aiming at, without the extra baggage that calls for the "apparently" qualifier: an anisotropy is directed, it has "an arrow", like time, but that doesn't imply you can't go against the arrow, so we don't need the "apparently" qualifier. However "anisotropic" might be a bit too technical a term for the first sentence, unless anyone can think of a more lay synonym? --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that there is some agreement evolving in this discussion. Both JimWae and Pfhorrest seem to be brewing the elements of a possible good lede. Suffice to say that I am in general agreement. Also, I don't need to go over that there is agreement on what does not seem work in the present lede. I notice that both are aware of the pitfalls of contentious wording. Truthfully, I am glad to see agreement on this matter. In addition, I notice that there is curiosity as to what the anon meant by "progression". Although I also don't wish to use this in the lede, here is what the anon wrote earlier:
 * "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'." [The anon also wrote:] "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)."
 * "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'." [The anon also wrote:] "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)."


 * So far I consider Phforrest's lede a front runner and I agree with his critques of Stervitigo's proposals. Also, it seems that Phorrest is parsing his "front runner".
 * Here it is: Time is the sequence of events occurring in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future, and a measurement of the durations of those events, the intervals between them, and the rates of changes occurring in them."


 * A really good statement how ever this turns out. (sigh!...) Some are born to write ledes, while are others are born to say "oh yeah! that's really good man."
 * I was going to repeat some earlier proposals, but that is no longer necessary since it obvious a very good lede is in the making if not already ready.


 * Also I was wondering if we need to consider what the anon has reiterated (but not for the first sentence):
 * "...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."
 * "Anisotropic" might not be a bad idea in that it takes the place of a few words -- without the baggage --- and has precision. Hopefully, I will be able to add more later. I would like to say more about what has been covered above, but right now I don't have any new insights to offer. Additionally, I am a little pressed for time at the moment. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head - a synonym for "anisotropic" might be "unidirectional" (def- operating or moving in one direction only; not changing direction from [Dictionary.com]. American Heritage has almost the same defintion .) I will try to come up with more.  Steve Quinn (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course with anisotropic is the implication of "having properties that differ according to the direction of measurement"  and that it is "not isotropic." . Likewise, the consensus of the sources seems to be that time is unidirectional. So how do we translate the "arrow of time" into anisotropic? It seemed to make sense at first.


 * From Dictionary.com " "(physics) of unequal physical properties along different axes. Compare isotropic" there is a different definition for plants but it doesn't make sense out of context. It makes sense here --> : "the state or condition of certain flowers or plants of having different dimensions along different axes" (The Gale Group, Inc) . Steve Quinn (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I just noticed something -- we really can't say that "time is the sequence of events...", nor "time is a sequence of events...". I think the sequence of events are a function of time. Without time, or some known interval of time, there is no way to know that events are sequential. We may be headed in the wrong direction, after all. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliments Steve, and I like "unidirectional" as a synonym for "anisotropic". Combine that with the other suggestions I've put forth above and what I'm currently pushing is:
 * "Time is the unidirectional succession of events from the past through the present to the future, and a measure of the durations of those events, the intervals between them, and the rates of changes occurring in them."
 * Notables changes in this from my proposal you quoted above: merged "sequence of events occurring in [...] succession" down to "[...] succession of events", simplified "apparently irreversible" to "unidirectional", and changed "measurement" to "measure" for clarity of meaning. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict addition: You could argue just as well that we don't know that time has passed without some sequence of events occurring (like ticks of a clock, or anything else). The gist I'm aiming for is that time is whatever it is that events are sequenced by: they wouldn't be in sequence if it wasn't for time, whatever time is, and we can refer to time as whatever it is that the events we see are sequenced by. It's supposed to be a generalized and more serious version of the nice neutral "time is what clocks measure" or "time is what keeps everything from happening at once". --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So you can see the circularity that is involved here. We may have to settle for an operational definition -- one that we agree on. In any case, I suggest amending the new one to: Time is known by the unidirectional succession of events from..." and the rest seems fine. However, my wording may seem cubersome (amenable to editing), but I am just trying to get the idea across. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see circularity, I see two ways of saying the same thing. We see events being in sequence, and by that we know that time is passing; and we call "time" whatever it is by which those events are sequenced. Time is known by the events being in sequence; but time is whatever constitutes that sequentiality (and we're not saying yet what that is which constitutes that sequentiality, but whatever it is, whatever events are sequenced or ordered along or across or according to, that is time). --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Steve Quinn that Pfhorrest's version is in the right direction, and disagree with the idea that time is entirely a perceptual concept, such as in Steve Quinn's wording: "Time is known by.." Pfhorrest's version "time is the unidirectional succession of events from the past through the present to the future, and a measure of the durations of those events, the intervals between them, and the rates of changes occurring in them." is almost as good as mine in its own way.

Pfhorrest before mentioned the idea of anisotropy. I think it works, but not in the first sentence, as its a little too technical. Plus its also not entirely clear that what we call time is just one dimensional, in any way other than the "temporal" dimension. It could be that what we call time is so multidimensional that calling it anisotropic could be just plain incorrect. For example we know the arrow of time concept cannot be correct in any spatial sense because all points in space are equally real, and because each point has its own clock. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * An anisotropy in a multidimensional space isn't impossible. Consider "uphill"; you're on a rolling countryside, a two dimensional surface, and at whatever point you are at, there are definitive "uphill" and "downhill" directions, even though there is more than one point immediately uphill from you and more than one point immediately downhill from you: any point which is closer than you to the hilltop is "uphill" from you, and any point which is further from it is "downhill". To tip my hand a little bit, that is actually an analogy that I like to use for my personal technical concept of time, which is that time is a local entropic anisotropy in the (infinite-dimensional) phase space of possible worlds; so while time is far from linear, there are as distinct "past" and "future" directions from (almost) any point in the the phase space as there are distinct "uphill" and "downhill" directions on a hillside. (The local [in the phase space] entropic minimum, the Big Bang, is the "hilltop", and the future is "downhill"). My point being that if anything I would be biased toward the concept of multidimensional time, and I don't think that "unidirectional" or "anisotropic" sound biased against me. But I'm also not dead set on either of those words being in the first sentence; saying less is generally more neutral if anything.
 * With regards to the relativity you mention, clocks in different reference frames may run at different rates, but as far as I know they still all run in the same direction, so anisotropy isn't violated there either. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note for everyone (regarding my lets-wait-24-hrs proposal off Rick's one-word changes), I'm going to be gone for the rest of the weekend and probably won't be around again until late Monday night (Pacific). I think my thoughts are spelled out clear enough here, but don't wait on a response from me for anything. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Continuing progression" is better than my choice, "sequence". "Progression" does not have the same connotation as "progress", and avoids the repetition of the word "sequence" in the next sentence.  "Continuing" does not suggest "continuous", and so avoids that implication.  Good work. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rick, we are probably going to drop that lede anyway. See the above discussion beginning with the section title "break", or start on the one before that. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I think "continuing progression" is better than "sequence" for the reasons Rick just listed and is also a suitable replacement for "succession" in the latest draft we were working on above. Using that phrase instead, I would revise our draft first sentence to:
 * "Time is the unidirectional continuing progression of events from the past through the present to the future, and a measure of the durations of those events, the intervals between them, and the rates of changes occurring in them."
 * Though now that I read that, as much as I liked it before, "unidirectional" sounds awkward to my ear now, and as the anon IP points out could be interpreted to mean the same thing as "irreversible", so I think it doesn't work as a synonym for "anisotropic", and we should just go back to the phrase in the cited sources (and the anon IP's version), "apparently irreversible". Which gives us:
 * "Time is the apparently irreversible continuing progression of events from the past through the present to the future, and a measure of the durations of those events, the intervals between them, and the rates of changes occurring in them."
 * But that big stack of adverbs and adjectives at the there now makes me want to break it up to be even more like the anon IP's original version now, though. Something like:
 * "Time is the continuing progression of events occurring in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future, and a measure of the durations of those events, the intervals between them, and the rates of changes occurring in them."
 * --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Phorrest (and others), Saying that time is a sequence of events or identitcal with a sequence of events is not correct. Also, I doubt this phrase is supported by the sources. It seems we can't know time without movement or events occuring. This includes the movement of the second hand on a clock., or noticing that the hour hand has moved from point A to point B. As has been stated above, sequenceing of events can easilty be movement(s) and durations (or intervals), combined with short term (or less accurate long term) memory. Moreover, the sources do support that we use time to measure duratiions, intervals, and mark sequence of events. In additon, I already have two explicit sources for sports, one for business, and I can get more for other disciplines -- enough to show that time is pervaisively part of measuring system. It is very ordinary, and we use it everyday. If anything time is used as one tool used to sequence events. Memory is another tool to sequence events, and I have source (in the article) to back that up. Additionally, I agree the three dictionary defintions above are a good starting point, but let's not be afraid to use other sources as well.  Steve Quinn (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're interpreting "sequence of events" in the way I feared it would be, which is why I've been looking for alternate phrasing. We're not trying to say that time is the events, which happen to be in sequence; we are trying to say that time is the being-in-sequence of those events; time is whatever makes them sequential and not lumped together ("happening at once" as the Wheeler quote goes). I think "progression" (or "succession") gets that across better than "sequence" does; and I've changed my mind now and think "continuing" does add something after all, namely helping clarify this confusion that we don't mean that time the set of events which are progressing, but rather the progressing of them, their coming and going. "Continuing progression" is closely supported by the dictionary sources the anon IP provided as well.
 * None of what you write here or below about time being measured in all kinds of disciplines and by all kinds of methods seems to contradict what this is saying either; have you noticed the second half of this sentence we're working on, the "...and a measure of..." part? I think your writing "time is pervaisively part of measuring system" is a backward way of putting what the underlying truth of that assertion is: measurements of time are pervasive. Most every system of measurement includes a system for measuring time, in many fields and by many methods. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The disagreement is in defining time as just part of a measurement system. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is too soon to predict that "we are probably going to drop that lede". The lead has many, many references. Over against them, you are offering an opinion. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rick, to the contrary -- it'not really too soon. As you can see we are diligently working on a lede that is acceptable according to Wikipedia standards. I am not offering an opinion, I am offering several editors that are working on a different lede, and this will lede reflects the sum of the sources in the article. I guess you are not really reading what everyone is posting in this thread. Steve Quinn (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rick, I think what Steve meant was "drop that phrasing in the first sentence of the lede", not drop the entire lede. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Moving on --- Let's see what else we can look at. Below is a look at how time has been used in a general way, perhaps as an ordering system.


 * "Before there were clocks, time was measured by those physical processes which were understandable to each epoch of civilization:
 * the first appearance (see: heliacal rising) of Sirius to mark the flooding of the Nile each year
 * the periodic succession of night and day, one after the other, in seemingly eternal succession
 * the position on the horizon of the first appearance of the sun at dawn
 * the position of the sun in the sky
 * the marking of the moment of noontime during the day
 * the length of the shadow cast by a gnomon


 * Eventually, it became possible to characterize the passage of time with instrumentation, using operational definitions. Simultaneously, our conception of time has evolved, as shown below. "  Steve Quinn (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that it seems we can most easily say that "time is used as blah, blah, blah...'" rather than time is blah, blah, blah...'" Steve Quinn (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's lede on time "Time is what clocks measure. The three key features of time are that it places events in sequence one after the other, and it specifies how long an event lasts, and when it occurs." One of the unresolved issues is saying what "time" actually is. The same is said here (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Steve Quinn (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I like this IEP lede. It really gets to the point, and is very similar to what I am aiming for in our work on our first sentence. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Secondary
Im happy with the current first sentence, as proposed by Pfhorrest, and tweaked by Steve Quinn, JimWae et al. Its about as good as it gets for such a broad and daresay controversial subject. The current first sentence does what a good introduction should - it talks about what the concept means in the most general terms. Compare this with the previously proposed versions: "time is part of a measuring system.." which is just inaccurate, "time is the experience of.." which is biased toward a perceptual idea of time, and "time is what a clock reads," which is both accurate and precise, in a kindergarten sort of way. The current version is light years more improved over the previous proposals. My general proposal was to define time in a general way, as any article should, and that goal has been satisfied.

My secondary proposal was to define time as a physical phenomenon, but I agree that this could be construed as biased, according to a philobabble or metaphysicle view. Its certainly interesting that Einstein himself a couple times stated that he thought time as some kind of illusion, but he left the planet long before we had a formal idea of holography, many worlds, and other proposed explanations. But the idea of time as being an illusion, in the literal sense, is inherently flawed, because even if all of reality were just a simulation, things would still have to transform in a logical way, and this phenomenon of things moving forward in a progressive way, even though simulated, would still be called "time."

In keeping with a logical top down approach, which tends to work well, we can move on to the rest of the article. The second sentence currently reads:
 * 2) "Diverse fields such as business, industry, sports, the sciences, music, dance, and the live theater incorporate time in their respective measuring systems.

Talking about "business, industry" and "sports" right after a general introduction to the most fundamental quantity of reality... is obtuse. What we should deal with instead is the matter of time as a physical phenomenon - and as an idea which is debated. The third and forth sentences get into the secondary part:
 * 3) "Moreover, time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields of study without circularity has consistently eluded scholars."

The third sentence is not bad, but the "consistently eluded scholars" part makes it sound like people just don't have a clue and have never pinned anything down at all. I don't think this is the case. The fifth sentence is perfect...
 * 5) "Simple definitions of time include "time is what clocks measure" and "time is what keeps everything from happening at once

.. because it includes the simplistic definition, which many people seem to like, but also includes Wheeler's (some sites attribute to Einstein) plain and interesting statement. On the matter of the fourth sentence..
 * 4) "Furthermore, it may be that there is a subjective component to time, but whether or not time itself is "felt", as a sensation or an experience, has never been settled."

..on times subjective "component"[sic], I think its possible to be more explanatory and less unspecific. Again, its clear that time is a part of reality (by whatever definition) and is therefore experienced in whatever way our cognition allows. Hence there is (naturally) a "subjective" perception of time (not a subjective "component" of time). All that does not mean that time is exclusively an experiential thing in and of itself, and not based in physics. We don't talk about physical experiences like sunlight or car crashes as purely experiential, just because theres a subjective "component"[sic]. Rememeber that even if we propose that all of reality is just a simulaton, such a simulation would still have to have some kind of physical basis. So as a fourth sentence, we can say something like:
 * Time is experienced in a perceptual way by both human beings and animals, but the matter of how time is experienced and percieved is the subject of study and debate in philosphy and psychology.

Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 20:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think a good general plan of action for the rest of the lede would be something like this:
 * For the first paragraph:
 * Move the current third sentence to the second sentence, and refine it some, but still making the general point: more precise definitions of time than the one we've just given here are contentious and vary between different sources in different theoretical fields.
 * Move the current second sentence to the third sentence, and segue into it from the previous one, with refinements, making the point: despite contention over exact definitions of time, people use some concept of time or another in all kinds of practical fields all the time.
 * Move the current fourth sentence down elsewhere (to be elaborated in a moment), and bring the current fifth sentence (with refinements) up to be the fourth sentence.
 * So our first paragraph will have a general structure of:
 * Time is something or other round about like so
 * Exact theoretical definitions more specific than that are highly contentious
 * Nevertheless people use them in practical matters all the time.
 * Here's some simple, practical, relatively uncontentious quotes about what time is.
 * Then for the other paragraphs in the lede:
 * Move the current third paragraph up to the second paragraph, with modifications, making the general point: There are physicalist and phenomenalist ways of looking at time.
 * Move the current second paragraph down to the third paragraph, and have it be a brief overview of time from a physicalist point of view.
 * Create a new fourth paragraph after that, perhaps based off of or incorporating the current fourth sentence of the first paragraph, giving a brief overview of time from a phenomenalist point of view.
 * I'm not sure what to do with the current fourth paragraph, though perhaps parts of it could be pulled apart into the aforementioned (new) third and fourth paragraphs, and perhaps parts of it could serve as just some general notes on the history and significance of the concept of time.
 * So our overall lede will have a general structure of
 * Definition of time and problems with defining it
 * Introduction of the physicalist-phenomenalist split
 * Time from a physicalist point of view
 * Time from a phenomenalist point of view
 * Miscellaneous notes on history and importance?
 * Thoughts? --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing the first sentence

 * We still haven't reached agreement on the first sentence yet. The first part is not accurate and I seriously question the value of the first reference. The first definition of that reference is meaningless mumbo jumbo. Also, the example sentences this source uses do not seem to correlate with the first definition. The second definition does not make much more sense "a point of time as measured in hours and minutes past midnight This obviously some different conception of time. This is a joke of a page and I can't see counting on it as a reliable source, and at this point I will not.


 * The second reference is also questionable. The link directs one to some hack site (named "your dictionary") that has the supposed defintion from Webster's Collegiate dictionary linked to it. This is misleading and I hate to say that there must be some agenda involved here. I think it is best to become more familiar with WP:RS. How can you say this site is acceptable? Sorry, but this hack site is some commercial entity and not a reliable source. This site cannot be reliably counted on to have Webster's Collegiate.


 * Here is what "Webster's Dictionary" actually says,
 * 1a : "the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration"
 * 1b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future.
 * 2: the point or period when something occurs : occasion
 * 3a : an appointed, fixed, or customary moment or hour for something to happen, begin, or end b : an opportune or suitable moment  —often used in the phrase about time


 * There are plethora of other sources to refer to. And I'm tired of being bulldozed during this quest to place personal bias in the first part of the lede of this article in order to fit with personal beliefs. I really don't need this. And I don't need one or two editors trying to bulldoze past me in an article (Phorrest and Stevertigo). Phorrest, really, use the good sense that you seem to have -- the first two sources are not acceptable sources. I have not looked at the third one.


 * This is from WP:RS -- "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." This certainly does not apply to the second source. The first source looks like some Micky Mouse operation even though I am aware of the supposed reputation of the publisher. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Or maybe you see this as a temporary situation -- hoping to find better sources later? That is the only thing I can see that you might be doing. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Steve, thank you for providing some better sources and critiques of the existing sources. I had not checked which sources were currently being used. I think your point about sources is mostly valid.
 * You are not being "bulldozed" by anyone, and your claim is baseless. No one has been trying to insert "personal bias" into this article. All I and Pfhorrest are doing is working in good faith toward improving an important article from its former state, which was largely flawed. And you and I have not yet interacted on this page at all, not since 2010, hence I don't see how you can claim that I am "bulldozing" you. And Pfhorrest isn't "bulldozing" you either.
 * Do you have any specific criticisms of the current first sentence? Can you please propose the changes or revisions you would like to see? -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Quinn's worry (I'm going to start calling him Quinn and you Tigo to keep from confusing things, if you both don't mind) is that we are (in this section here) moving on to discussing the rest of the lede, and I could see how that could be interpreted as "ok, the first sentence is done, now on to the next..." I certainly don't see it that way; I see it as you being satisfied with where the first sentence is going and raising subsequent issues you've been sitting on, and I'm just responding to that. I for one am still listening to further discussion on the first sentence as well, and think that what we've both written above applies regardless of how the remaining open issues in the first sentence turn out.
 * As for Quinn's specific criticisms of the existing sources, I will have to look into that tomorrow as I am short on time tonight. In the meantime I would like to hear his answer to your (Tigo's) question about more specific suggestions. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Steve Quinn: You seem to be getting awfully emotional about this, calling other editor's ideas "a joke" and accusing them of "bulldozing" you. This does not add anything to the discussion.

I agree with you that "sequence" is more neutral than "progression", even though several sources use "progression" or the equivalent. In an effort to work toward a compromise, I'll put "sequence" back in the first sentence. I hope this helps. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your concern. Rick, thank you for your recent effort.
 * My first issue is the phrase "Time is the continuing sequence of events occuring blah, blah. ..." It seems like we are trying "fudge" this phrase past Wikipedia standards. The particular standards I have in mind are WP:RS, undue weight, and neutral point of view. The majority view definition of time according to the various dictionaries (to begin with) is not a continuting sequence of events. I can agree that it is "something" that "occurs in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future". Yet, that "something" does vary. It appears that the majority view variations are pretty much:
 * Majority views
 * An interval separating two points on [a] continuum;
 * A duration: (a long time since the last war; passed the time reading).
 * A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval:ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
 * 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.
 * A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time (American Heritage


 * a point of time as measured in hours and minutes
 * definite [interval] allotted, used, or suitable for a purpose: (such as departure time)
 * Victorian times (a period of years in history SQ )
 * Time of year (another time period SQ ) Oxford Dict.


 * the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration"
 * a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future.
 * the point or period when something occurs : occasion
 * an appointed, fixed, or customary moment or hour for something to happen, begin, or end b : an opportune or suitable moment


 * Some minority Views:
 * For example:
 * the indefinite continued progress of existence...Oxford Dict.
 * 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.the entire period of existence of the known universe; finite duration, as distinguished from infinity
 * b.the entire period of existence of the world or of humanity; earthly duration, as distinguished from eternity
 * c.Father Time Webster's New World College Dictionary


 *  So far these are the unreferenced views in this article: 
 * Time is the continuing sequence of events...


 * So the point is this part really needs to be changed to reflect the sources. In addition, are we also going to "fudge" the other four paragraphs in the lede? My next point pertains to the first sentence lede . The one phrase that really stands out is not supported by sources and it has to be supported by sources to be included. Overall this is a well written sentence -- however the former lede is also well written.
 * Tigo says the original lede was flawed. Please show us how it is flawed? Also where is it not totally based on reliable sources?
 * To everybody -- we can only write what the sources say -- see WP:RS, undue weight, and neutral point of view.
 * The bulldozing I was refering to is that these specific points (minus Tigo's comment) are not being heard even though they have been brought up more than several times. Also, I would like us all to consider that both ledes are well written.
 * Also I rescind my protestations pertaining to the first two references. After looking at these a second, third, and fourth time, they seem to be sources that are reliable enough. Regards to all -- -- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As can be seen, Wikipedia standards are a sticking point for me. It is similar to Phoresst's preference for a well written sentence over something that is "clunky" but accurate. His focus is on "well written" whereas for me the beauty is in the sourcing. Hopefully this makes sense, and I hope that both views are quite normal. In any case, perhaps this phrase is a small issue in the grand scheme of all this editing. So I am willing to wait until later to fix it. In addition, there are more proposals pertaining to the rest of the lede. Let me not stand in the way of progress, hence let us continue onward.  We can wait until later to fix the lede. I want to allow Phorrest the time he needs for this.  Steve Quinn (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What Steve Quinn sees as "fudging" I see as paraphrasing, to avoid direct quotation of copyrighted material. Also, the separation of the citations into majority views and minority views seems arbitrary. It would be more clear to say what the view is, and then list which citations support it. And there are red herrings on the list. The subject of this article has nothing to do with the use of "time" to mean "a period of years in history" or "time of year".

To respond to Steve Quinn's question: How was the original lead flawed? Well, the article was rated C-class by a number of raters. That doesn't necessarly reflect on the lead, but is an indication that something is wrong. The problem I had with the original lead was that it (as best I remember) didn't mention the meaning of time as a subjective experience, apart from measurement. Some authorities claim that when we say we experience time we are mistaken. But other authorities allow that time has a subjective component. The previous lead seemd to me to favor the former view and ignore the latter.

Finally, Steve Quinn, when you say you are "not being heard", I think you are mistaken. Your views are heard, and there is no need to repeat them. We hear; we respectfully disagree. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, Rick. Overall there has been a lot of agreement across the board. So, yes, most of my views are getting across. My mistake was focusing on me thinking that everything must be sourced (right now!!!!) before we move on. Phorrest has shown himself to be highly dependable in matters such as these and I forgot that. I was being a little too rigid. I probably wasn't looking at Phorrest but remembering other encounters where some don't care about sourcing ariticles. So, I apologize for offending the editors.


 * Mostly, I just wanted to crystlize what I was getting at. Also, I thought organizing some of the sources as "Majority view", and "Minority view" was helpful. These are not really arbrtrary categories. The majority views are the most often cited in dictionary definitions of time, across dictionaries. The minority views are the least often cited. Also, this is subject to change as we explore more sources, it is not etched in stone, and I am not the final authority on these matters. The majority and minority views are based on the idea of undue weight WP:UNDUE.


 * I am guessing that we want to support definitions that have the most citations or, in other words -- the most weight, to have the most effective article possible. The minority views may be worth mentioning after the relevant majority views have been covered. In addition, unfortunately, time as a subjective expereince is not the main stream view by either scientists or philosophers, as I showed much earlier with a couple of sources. It is at best controversial surrounding a big question mark. It has been proposed but apparently there is no real evidence to back it up.


 * Finally, I am sorry to say that the subject of this article is relevant to "a period of years in history" and a "time of year". The "time of year" is a point in time or a point on the timeline. A "period of years" is a measurement of time passing and probably has distinct starting and ending points. For example, the Civil Rights era has a starting year and an ending year, and may be as precise a starting month within the year. Scholars may disagree on the exact starting and ending years, but they talk about roughly the same period of time. There are all kinds of eras and periods that make up U.S. History. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the words of faith Steve, though I have to admit that I know I am very bad about coming up with sources. (I sometimes say I have a "poor internal bibliography" -- I remember facts very well, but never where I learned them). I appreciate the value of sources, but I know I am not very good with them, so I focus my efforts more on organizing and phrasing things clearly, and in maintaining neutrality by saying less when more would be contentious, even if one side of the debate on that 'more' is well-sourced.
 * On which point, that is the approach I am trying to advocate here. NPOV doesn't mean "majority POV", it means respecting all notable points of view. So having some reliable sources which state one point of view isn't good enough if there are also other reliable sources (even if fewer) which state a contrary point of view; to maintain neutrality the article can't side with either point of view.
 * I liked the anon's first sentence because it draws on things which many dictionary definitions have in common. The work that I think needs to be done from there is making sure that none of those things in common go against anything less common; to drop any claims on contentious issues, leaving only non-contentious material behind. It sounds like you want to go in the opposite direction, and drop anything which isn't common enough in the sources, even if it has some sources and doesn't contradict others; and add material which is common in the sources, even if it goes against some other sources. I think that would take us further away from NPOV, not closer. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we are in agreement. I believe Wikipedia intends that all signifigant views be represented. I pretty sure this includes signifigant minority views. So any view that has some decent sourcing (such as the minority views) probably should be included. Also we can now match our thoughts to what is in the four paragraphs of the lede (or introduction) and see what else may need to be covered or mentioned.


 * Furthermore there are some intriguing ideas in the minority view list such as: (time) -- "the entire period of existence of the known universe" ; "the entire period of existence of the world or of humanity" ; "earthly duration". Perhaps, it might be a good idea to tone down the wording. We don't have to consider these right way. These are just food for thought. If they are good fit we can stick them in the four paragraphs somewhere if not already there (all depending). And there must be others in the definitions. Finally, please note I struck one of comments up there in the majority / minority views. I apologize if I offended anyone with that comment. I was not intending anything personal. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment on editing

 * No, that is not seen. Steve (Quinn), what you and (Editor A) called the "consensus lede" was soooooo heavily biased toward the POV of physics (the "operational definition") and measurement that, whether it had existed for 4 years or not, it was far beneath Wikipedia standards.  As I pointed out in the AN/I that you started, you're not a very good listener.  The previous lede was shit.  Only POV.  Your objections have been swatted aside.  The current lede isn't what I would like to see either.  Every word I used has been solidly supported by the OED or MW or AH.  Even "indefinite" (as you shown with your OED link).  Even "continued", even "progress", even "existence".  Your reference to the OED has all those words, yet they don't appear in the lede and you consistently objected to their inclusion.
 * You cannot self-righteously hold yourself up as supporting Wikipedia standards. E.g. and e.g.  Steve Quinn, you're a crappy Wikipedia editor.  You're a POV pusher.  You don't listen.  You don't recognize sourcing when presented to you and you don't recognize the obvious bias and POV in old edits you defend and seem to like.
 * A Wikipedia lede, designed by committee, will seldom have the coherence and conciseness of a well-written lede designed by one or two persons with knowledge and vision. I'm willing to leave it, even though it has those deficits.  What exists, although clunky (run-on sentence, omitting key words from the primary definitions in the English dictionaries) is far, far better, far, far more in adherence to the second pillar than what you and (Editor A) were defending.   It doesn't matter that it was there for 4 years.  It was discovered by some other folks, myself included, solid objections were raised (even before I came on the scene), and you could not and would not hear it.
 * Don't delude yourself, Steve Quinn. 70.109.183.229 (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit note: Foregoing comments by 70.109.183.229 restored by Steve Quinn, moved back up here where it initially was for coherency of followup comments by Pfhorrest (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit note: Foregoing comments by 70.109.183.229 restored by Steve Quinn, moved back up here where it initially was for coherency of followup comments by Pfhorrest (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

We are not here to discuss other editors. I consider the above a violation of WP:NPA. I removed the above & also hatted it, but nameless has reinserted it about 5 times. I warn nameless about WP:3RR and I encourage other editors to remove it. --JimWae (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lesseee, is it


 * Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
 * Or is it
 * Or is it


 * Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.
 * Or is it
 * Or is it


 * Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.
 * Or is it
 * Or is it


 * Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)
 * Or is it
 * Or is it


 * Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.
 * ? NB, I might invite people to look at the two diffs I referenced.
 * Or is it

* Threats, including, but not limited to...
 * I'll leave that list off.
 * (Editor A), what you and Steve (not Tigo) need to understand is that, just because you say something or think something doesn't mean that something is true or factual or "truthiness" or whatever is the Wikipedia term for real. Steve nakedly held himself up as some kinda good editor that upholds Wikipedia standards.  He doesn't, and I'm calling him out on it.  70.109.183.229 (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I find this exchange that just happened here disgraceful, on your part Jim. The anon's comment was not the most polite thing in the world but certainly not bad enough to delete with that much prejudice, especially after earlier complaints that he wasn't participating on Talk enough. And a 3RR ban because of trying to defend his right to speak up on Talk is especially egregious. At least give the guy a voice. --Pfhorrest (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to be assuming that it was I who blocked him. Please note I tried several ways to deal with the problem. I am disappointed that anyone is defending having personal attacks become part of the talk page dialog. --JimWae (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nameless is now evading his block at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_take_a_look_at_Talk:Time --JimWae (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I see that it was Materialscientist who blocked him, after you flagged him with a 3RR warning, and Quinn specifically ran to Materialscientist asking for admin intervention. But your repeated deletion of his talk page comments is what instigated this, and you were "edit warring" just as much as he was, by repeatedly deleting his comments. You should have warned him about his tone and asked him to redact the specific parts that you considered personal attacks instead of blanketly silencing him.
 * As to the content of his comments, I see only one remark which is a direct comment on the editor rather than on content, though the overall tone is admittedly harsh and directed at the edits of one editor in particular. The one remark is "Steve Quinn, you're a crappy Wikipedia editor". The rest of the remarks are comments on patterns of Quinn's editing which the anon apparently considers disruptive himself (POV pushing and ignoring counterarguments; the latter of which is something Rick Norwood essentially reiterates just above). As the rest of those remarks are written as though to flesh out in what way Quinn is "a crappy Wikipedia editor", and the entire post is in response to Quinn's boast of being a good Wikipedia editor (which Rick again calls out for its hostile tone just above), I think that one remark and the harsh tone can easily be excused.
 * Note that none of this is necessarily to defend anything he said; at this point I'm more concerned with his right to say it. Warn him to watch his tone, sure, just like Rick did Steve, but don't redact his speech. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the "Comment on editing" being moved up here. Truthfully, I didn't know where put it. It seems to make sense putting it here with the related comments. Also I like what you have said, in the section above, and I will respond later.  Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)