Metric Time

[runvardh]

Also, the logistics of the change are very real and more expensive than what many may be willing to pay to have the change over happen. There would need to be an actual benefit to the change other than a few spaced Ns who have trouble remembering the date.

 

[Athenian200]

I don't see how the Metric system is an improvement on the current one. It's just different.

What kind of improvement do you not see? The structure is more internally consistent, compactly expressible, and is a much simpler mental object series to hold in mind when thinking about time over longer periods. That's technically an improvement.

If you mean that it doesn't produce any observable immediate results that benefit people, then I guess you're right, but you have a very results-oriented definition of improvement.

 

[JocktheMotie]

What kind of improvement do you not see? The structure is more internally consistent, compactly expressible, and is a much simpler mental object series to hold in mind when thinking about time over longer periods. That's technically an improvement.

If you mean that it doesn't produce any observable immediate results that benefit people, then I guess you're right, but you have a very results-oriented definition of improvement.

You're looking at it too microscopically, without any consideration as to what time actually is and how we as a culture and species have come to define it. While yes, a steadily increasing unit of measurement does benefit from a far more effecient system like the metric system, Time as we experience it has a cyclical component that must be accounted for. The earth cycles around the sun, and you have a year. The moon cycles around the earth, and you have a month, etc. Every 365 times the earth spins, this cycle repeats. Having a completely increasing, and linear method of recording this process, is I think, counter-intuitive.

However, like previously mentioned, once we as a species leave earth, that method of experiencing time will no longer be applicable or intuitive. So then, it may change.

So, just because an idea or system is more internally consistent and seems relatively scale invariant in terms of the current system, doesn't mean it automatically describes what it's measuring any better. I'd argue that it doesn't.

 

[Quinlan]

There are 6 hours either side of high/low tide. If it is high tide at 6pm today then I know it will be hightide at 7pm the next day (and low tide will be 6 hours before it and after it) and so on.

This method of calculating the tides is very useful and practical in real life so don't go changing anything silly intuitives.

6 hour tides is so much simpler than 3.6 hour tides.

 

[Athenian200]

You're looking at it too microscopically, without any consideration as to what time actually is and how we as a culture and species have come to define it. While yes, a steadily increasing unit of measurement does benefit from a far more effecient system like the metric system, Time as we experience it has a cyclical component that must be accounted for. The earth cycles around the sun, and you have a year. The moon cycles around the earth, and you have a month, etc. Every 365 times the earth spins, this cycle repeats. Having a completely increasing, and linear method of recording this process, is I think, counter-intuitive.

However, like previously mentioned, once we as a species leave earth, that method of experiencing time will no longer be applicable or intuitive. So then, it may change.

Yes, yes, that's what I had in mind. That's what this change should be in preparation for. It will make people more comfortable with the idea of leaving the Earth, because it will help wean them off of defining things in Earth-based terms. Which in turn will unconsciously lead to increased support for the space program.

And I guess what I'm asserting is that the way people have come to define time as a culture and species is a flawed definition that doesn't accord with the actual nature of time as something that moves ever forward. In fact, it's somewhat illusory, the way people behave as if holidays commemorate historical events because "it's that day again." That's a flawed perspective, it's not that day again just because some cycle repeated, and it never will be. That maybe how people are defining time, but that's NOT how time actually works.

I mean, think about it... you only age older and older, you don't revisit your youth. Your life is a straight line between birth and death. People like to define time in a way that helps them ignore or avoid acknowledging this to some extent, so that they can fool themselves into believing that they can hold onto past a little longer, that they've still got a kind of connection to it they don't really have.

So, just because an idea or system is more internally consistent and seems relatively scale invariant in terms of the current system, doesn't mean it automatically describes what it's measuring any better. I'd argue that it doesn't.

I suppose it depends on whether you think the concept of time should measure/include anything other than the distance between the present and a scheduled point in the future. I don't know about other people, but when I use time, that's really all I'm using it for. So for me, including anything else in the definition is cumbersome junk I have to maneuver around to get to my main purpose in using the system.

Eh, I guess I'm just another Idealist with no sense of practicality.

There are 6 hours either side of high/low tide. If it is high tide at 6pm today then I know it will be hightide at 7pm the next day (and low tide will be 6 hours before it and after it) and so on.

This method of calculating the tides is very useful and practical in real life so don't go changing anything silly intuitives.

6 hour tides is so much simpler than 3.6 hour tides.

But that's EXACTLY the kind of thinking I want to eliminate. Thinking in Earth-based, localized terms. We should hold everything back just because the tides on one planet happen to behave a certain way that accords with a cycle? LOL.

 

[Quinlan]

But that's EXACTLY the kind of thinking I want to eliminate. Thinking in Earth-based, localized terms. We should hold everything back just because the tides on one planet happen to behave a certain way that accords with a cycle? LOL.

But I don't want to go fishing on Venus?

 

[Ivy]

The tides on one planet.. the one we happen to live on. You seem to think that's a teensy meaningless detail that people are focusing on unnecessarily.

Our current methods of timekeeping make a lot of sense given that we live on Earth, and we're nowhere near colonizing other worlds right now, so switching to this would be arbitrary and annoying to most people. I don't think annoying people is the way to get them ready to accept space travel.

 

[Athenian200]

The tides on one planet.. the one we happen to live on. You seem to think that's a teensy meaningless detail that people are focusing on unnecessarily.

I don't just think that. I KNOW it.

Our current methods of timekeeping make a lot of sense given that we live on Earth, and we're nowhere near colonizing other worlds right now, so switching to this would be arbitrary and annoying to most people. I don't think annoying people is the way to get them ready to accept space travel.

But, but... this way of measuring time doesn't reflect anything about how time really works, how it's really just the measurement of a distance between two points, and consistently moves forward. They seem to have far less trouble trouble defining/understanding points in space correctly, so why is it so hard for them to get rid of the weird artifacts in time measurement?

Ah, well, I guess this annoying, small, local/practical perspective is what everyone is going to use, so it doesn't matter. I swear, I'm surrounded by blind people.

 

[JocktheMotie]

I don't just think that. I KNOW it.


But, but... this way of measuring time doesn't reflect anything about how time really works, how it's really just the measurement of a distance between two points, and consistently moves forward. They seem to have far less trouble trouble defining/understanding points in space correctly, so why is it so hard for them to get rid of the weird artifacts in time measurement?

Ah, well, I guess this annoying, small, local/practical perspective is what everyone is going to use, so it doesn't matter. I swear, I'm surrounded by blind people.

For some reason, you're having trouble understanding why the time and date system we use now is better at describing how it passes on earth than the system you propose, and I cannot determine why that is.

Think of what you're proposing. Your theory doesn't describe the physical system it is designed to describe better than the current one. It falls short. There's no point in changing to a system that's better at describing how time passes in space, when, you know, we're not in space.

 

[Athenian200]

For some reason, you're having trouble understanding why the time and date system we use now is better at describing how it passes on earth than the system you propose, and I cannot determine why that is.

Think of what you're proposing. Your theory doesn't describe the physical system it is designed to describe better than the current one. It falls short. There's no point in changing to a system that's better at describing how time passes in space, when, you know, we're not in space.

Time doesn't describe a "physical system," AFAIK. And it doesn't really pass differently on Earth than anywhere else. It's all forward movement in the 4th dimension happening at a consistent rate, and time measures the distance between those points. If you think it's tied to anything physical, that's an illusion created by relying on physical indicators and mistaking them for the underlying concept.

Is this not obvious?

Note that the errors in understanding only occur with smaller units. When you look at years and longer units like decades and centuries, the way time is understood comes closer to my understanding. With smaller units, it inexplicably breaks down into muddy, arbitrary, localized divisions that aren't meaningful.

 

[JocktheMotie]

Time doesn't describe a "physical system," AFAIK. And it doesn't really pass differently on Earth than anywhere else. It's all forward movement in the 4th dimension happening at a consistent rate.
Is this not obvious?

Apparently not, since you're incorrect. Time passes at different rates according to different factors involved in your motion, mass, etc. Time passes differently under different strengths of gravitational force.

Time does describe a physical system, in the sense that we can use it to measure change, and if it is involved in measurement, it has a unit. However, most of the disagreements aren't really about time, but about calendar and dates. Dates make sense because from year to year, every local region can find comparison from the date of one day on one year, to the following date of another year, in terms of climate, responsibilities, tasks, etc. It is easy to compare May vs. December, it is not so easy to compare 365.47 vs. 1048.63, in those terms.

Everything we do here is dictated by the year cycle. It makes sense to catalogue the passage of time using that cycle to maintain consistency.

Once we are free of that cycle, it obviously becomes a less important thing to consider.

 

[Geoff]

That does explain why they did it. Although that doesn't explain why we're still doing it. Oh, well.



You see, that's actually another reason it should be changed or removed from the standard calender. I actually find it mildly offensive that I have religion thrown in my face every time someone talks about what day it is. So it's not only arbitrary, poorly labeled, and difficult to keep track of, it's rather offensive to people who don't share the religion of the people who invented it. It's one thing for religious people to want it, but why should the rest of us be subjected to it when we're trying to figure out when something happens?

Hmm... everything else can be justified based on how people had to tell time in the past, in my mind, but I firmly believe that the week is a truly awful unit of time.

Actually, I read some interesting research about why the week is an excellent unit of time. We as humans have a body clock that doesn't match the length of our days (it's an argument sometimes used for why we might be alien to the planet, although let's not go into that here!). In any case, this means that each day we are forced to keep to a schedule we, typically, move out of synch by up to an hour. After 5 or 6 days, the relaxing plus chance - hopefully- to sleep late fix that imbalance.

So, the week as a unit might be officially religious in origin, but to me it seems more likely that religious texts were already enshrining something intrinsic to the human experience on a 24 hour day planet. Put us on a 25 hour day planet and give us the extra hour to sleep, and we shouldnt need to use weeks as a unit (although it's still nice to have leisure time, right?)

 

[Feops]

Yes, yes, that's what I had in mind. That's what this change should be in preparation for. It will make people more comfortable with the idea of leaving the Earth, because it will help wean them off of defining things in Earth-based terms. Which in turn will unconsciously lead to increased support for the space program.

You're asking for people on earth to stop using earth terms?

People are going to continue using 24 hour days even in space because there's no incentive to switch to something else. There's no need to redefine seconds, minutes, hours just because you're no longer bound to those cycles. I mean sure, you could set up 10 hours with 100 minutes or something, cut into different durations than our current hours and minutes, but why?

What you may see in the far far far future when another planet is colonized that they will set up their own system as the earth system is then out of synch with their days. In this case the old system will still persist because you can't standardize such a thing. Earth may have 10 metric hours and Planet J might have 15.23 metric hours. They still don't match, you can't unify them. It will require a system of conversions to synch it all up.

 

[Athenian200]

Apparently not, since you're incorrect. Time passes at different rates according to different factors involved in your motion, mass, etc. Time passes differently under different strengths of gravitational force.

Not relative to the individual, though. For a given individual, time is always experienced at the same rate.

What do motion and mass have to do with time? That only changes the way we end up measuring time relative to something, not the consequences of it's passing. Everything is happening everywhere simultaneously, it just SEEMS to be happening at different speeds in different places because of distortion.

Time does describe a physical system, in the sense that we can use it to measure change, and if it is involved in measurement, it has a unit. However, most of the disagreements aren't really about time, but about calendar and dates. Dates make sense because from year to year, every local region can find similarity from the date of one day on one year, to the following date of another year, in terms of climate, responsibilities, tasks, etc. It is easy to compare May vs. December, it is not so easy to compare 365.47 vs. 1048.63, in those terms.

Everything we do here is dictated by the year cycle. It makes sense to catalogue the passage of time using that cycle to maintain consistency.

Once we are free of that cycle, it obviously becomes a less important thing to consider.

But regions, climate, movement... ARGH. That doesn't have anything to do with it...

I really can't wrap my head around the way most other people think. Other people's thoughts are all warped by the physical world, the way the measuring tape reacts instead of the object of measure, and the human experience with it's associated tendencies and insecurities... they don't understand anything clearly.

 

[JocktheMotie]

Not relative to the individual, though. For a given individual, time is always experienced at the same rate.

What do motion and mass have to do with time? That only changes the way we end up measuring time relative to something, not the consequences of it's passing. Everything is happening everywhere simultaneously, it just SEEMS to be happening at different speeds in different places because of distortion.

Changes in motion and mass also equate to changes in the passage of time. It's why particles in accelerators decay far slower and "live longer," their speed and mass change the way they move through time.

Also, with the bolded, no. There is no standard, absolute vantage point of experience that is any more or less correct than another. If you see something happen at a different time than your friend who is on a different relative plane of experience, neither of you is wrong. The event did happen at different times.

This is becoming a physics discussion, and I know that's not really the point of your thread, so I'll stop.

But regions, climate, movement... ARGH. That doesn't have anything to do with it...

I really can't wrap my head around the way most other people think.

And I cannot wrap my head around why you want to institute a change to how time is labeled and catalogued when that change would be less relevant and applicable to observation.

 

[Athenian200]

Changes in motion and mass also equate to changes in the passage of time. It's why particles in accelerators decay far slower and "live longer," their speed and mass change the way they move through time.

Also, with the bolded, no. There is no standard, absolute vantage point of experience that is any more or less correct than another. If you see something happen at a different time than your friend who is on a different relative plane of experience, neither of you is wrong. The event did happen at different times.

This is becoming a physics discussion, and I know that's not really the point of your thread, so I'll stop.

Actually, that's interesting... I'll probably go and research that later on to see if I can make sense out of time.

And I cannot wrap my head around why you want to institute a change to how time is labeled and catalogued when that change would be less relevant and applicable to observation.

Well, because I consider simplicity, compactness, and consistency in defining a specific point more relevant than observation. Basically, I believe the physical world and what we can observe in it is largely irrelevant except for the concepts we can derive/extract from it, and the specific, present nature of things shouldn't be allowed to distort a person's thoughts about other potential natures things might have.

Basically... I don't see anything really trustworthy in external, local, observable reality, and find the fact that others do, somewhat strange and repulsive.

 

[Geoff]

Actually, that's interesting... I'll probably go and research that later on to see if I can make sense out of time.



Well, because I consider simplicity, compactness, and consistency in scheduling a specific point more relevant than observation. Basically, I believe the physical world and what we can observe in it is largely irrelevant except for the concepts we can derive/extract from it, and the specific, present nature of things shouldn't be allowed to distort a person's thoughts about other potential natures things might have.

Basically... I don't see anything really trustworthy in external reality.

I do agree with you that the 60's are a bit arbitrary. I'd could live with base 10 units so that I could use the in built calculator (fingers)

 

[Athenian200]

I do agree with you that the 60's are a bit arbitrary. I'd could live with base 10 units so that I could use the in built calculator (fingers)

Yeah, exactly!

I don't know, maybe people will get it eventually, after they get into space and a few generations pass without having lived mostly on a planet orbiting a star. They're going to have to be exposed to an environment where it's apparent that it's irrelevant to understand the concept that it is so. Oh, well.

This thread probably removes much doubt about whether I'm an N-dominant type, huh?

 

[Quinlan]

This thread is cute.

 

[Eric B]

When I first learned the metric system in school; I wondered why time was left out, and later figured a metric second would be 1/100,000th of a day, or .864 seconds.
What the site in the link did not consider for a prefix for hundred thousandth was "decimilli-". (Though one person argued the SI would never accept that).
My interest was sparked off when I worked the 2000 Census, and saw for the first time the decimalized hour, (where :30 becomes .5; :15 beomes .25, etc), and figured they should go all the way for the whole day.

When I looked it up online, I found the site http://www.decimaltime.hynes.net and joined its forum, but it seems to be down for good now.

I also figured that the week and month could be replaced, but not the year because of the seasons.
The week would be difficult, because we are so used to the 7 day rhythm. How would we even distribute the work days and weekend? Not two days off, eight says on? Longer weekend? Four days off, six days on? Or spread the off says? Like 3/3/4 or something?
And most of the religions would never give up the 7 day week, because that's tied to divine Creation.

But the divisions of the day should be considered.