How to get a clear understanding of time as 4th dimension?

Question

This is a copy an past from wiki.
It seems two distinct views exist on the meaning of time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. This is the realist view, to which Sir Isaac Newton subscribed, in which time itself is something that can be measured.

A contrasting view is that time is part of the fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which we sequence events, quantify the duration of events and the intervals between them, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows", that objects "move through", or that is a "container" for events. This view is in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, in which time, rather than being an objective thing to be measured, is part of the mental measuring system.

Which view is correct?

Answer 1

The first view would be the correct view, though I'm sure even Sir Isaac Newton didn't have the correct concept of time, because he lived before Einstein gave us Special Relativity.

The second view sounds like it can be summed up in a simple statement: "The existence of time is just in your head." Time is very much a real quantity of the universe and would exist independent of human existence.

Now, things like measuring time in hours, the definition of the length of a day, a year, things like that are 'just in our heads'. We use those units of time out of convenience. But time, regardless of what units you want to use, does exist and interacts with us and space in ways stranger than anyone would have thought. I would advise reading up on Special Relativity if you would like a further understanding of time.

Hope this helps.

Answer 2

From what I gather, and I've only touched on the subject, the 4th dimension isn't a place or thing. It's more of a level of consciousness, or a state of mind, than a location or any sort of new reality. It sounds very similar to the astral plane and the third-eye thing (which is just a visual representation of the core idea), in fact it may be the same concept just using a different name. A friend of mine from Asia does astral meditation all the time, and says there's nothing supernatural or paranormal about it. To her, it's as normal as breathing. She took me through a meditation session once, and it was pretty cool. I was awake the whole time, but it was like I had taken a deep power-nap when I was done. I know I didn't leave my body, but I did get a floating sensation and could picture anything I wanted in razor-sharp detail. She insists that people can actually communicate with each other without speaking while doing this, and I think maybe that's true. I know it was all in my mind, but modern science readily admits they don't have the human mind entirely figured out yet. I tell you this... if everybody can get to this 4th dimension thing, it'll probably be pretty cool. Think of what we'd save on long distance bills alone!

Answer 3

Mathematically you can derive that time is the 4th dimension. Its not an intellectual construct or a leap of faith, its quite real (well imaginary actually) but it's as real as you or I and it can therefore be observed experimentally. Kant and Leibniz, if your quote is correct, got it wrong.

I was shown one proof that time is the 4th dimension using Maxwells equations - it was rather mind blowing.

Time, like all spacial dimensions, is orthogonal. Unlike the dimensions of space where you can trace a path back to where you started, we are as yet unable to do this with time - we can travel in only one direction.

Time flows in one direction as we are effectively falling through this dimension. If you go fast you can slow time down (you can observe this) and according to Einstein, if you could achieve c time for you would stop - so as with all the spacial dimensions if you travel at c the direction in which you are travelling collaspes down to zero size (and this happens with time too, it would stop for you).

M theory indicates that there are 11 dimensions, and having theorised through the big bang into 'the bulk' it is clear that time existed before the big bang.

I wish I could say more but I'm not qualified to go further and would not like to lead you astray.

There are plenty of fantastic books out there that cover this subject, but you're going to need excellent maths skills before you'll get the best from them - apart from the lay reader books produced by Hawking.

Good luck.

LT

Answer 4

Hmm do I want to argue with Issac Newton or Immanuel Kant...

They are both correct in talking about different aspects of time. Physics is something pretty separate from philosophy ( I mean that they don't depend on one other although they do often echo one another).

When you talk about physics you are describing the universe through rules. Your presence is not unnecessary. Time to the physicist is something that is always there but is influenced by other things. To the physicist time is relative. I do not suggest thinking of time as the 4th dimension... that makes it equatable to something like width or depth. If you ever study physics that can make things very confusing. To think of it as a part of space time - something which interacts with space- is best.

Philosophy on the other hand questions all of our knowledge and all existence, famously asserting that the only thing we can know for sure is that we exist. Therefore not only is time dependent on our existence but just about every thing else very well could be.

Obviously aside from all of this, humans divvy up the phenomenon of time so that they can deal with it simply in their day to day. We measure it based on agreed methods of doing so. This works because we are constantly faced with it (philosophically, if it doesn't exist it doesn't matter because we are dealing with it anyway) and because we are not faced with a great deal of relativity in our everyday lives.

Answer 5

Read Steven Hawkin's book "A Brief History of Time"

Answer 6

Are they inconsistent? Here's a quote from the posted link - "Most all philosophers of time claim that philosophical theories should be consistent with physical science, or, if not, then they must accept the heavy burden of proof to justify the inconsistency. "

Answer 7

ok i was going to answer this question.... but its completely mixed my head up..... what is time?? Confusing stuff if you think hard enough about it