Talk:Time

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

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

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

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This  level-2 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Time. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Time at the Reference desk.

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

A real issue with the concept of time that it is at once something everyone intuitively grasps and uses day-to-day, but that it stubbornly resists more rigorous analysis. This is why it has been a subject of such deep inquiry in philosophy, science and psychology for literally thousands of years. It is a classic example of a cognitive blind-spot or Rozenblit and Keil's "illusion of explanatory depth" [1].

My issue with the opening paragraph is that it just echoes back the illusion that it is something which is settled and universally understood. The audience, the reader of an article about something like this isn't an alien who has never heard of time, it's a human who is grappling with the concept - and as such, I don't think it's a problem to address the unsettledness of the topic right out of the blocks.

Time, while deeply intuitive to most people as a flow from past to future^{[citation needed]}, has proven remarkably resistant to rigorous analysis^{[citation needed]}, becoming a profound point of contention among philosophers and scientists for thousands of years^{[citation needed]}.

(NB I haven't hunted down the best citations for this, but I don't think it would be hard to establish the claims I'm making here.)

Basically, I'm saying we should speak to the actual audience. A person who is already thinking deeply about time: you're right to feel unsure, here's why ... --Stephen.G.McAteer (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your sense of the situation—this is an encyclopedia article, and the lead section of an encyclopedia article is a summary of a summary. The lead should proportionately summarize the contents of the body, and insisting on address the unsettledness of the topic right out of the blocks would seem to me to be undue editorializing, potentially tendentiously so, in favor of the skeptical position. Many fundamental concepts are unsettled and lack unified definitions as such, but we shouldn't wring our hands and impede saying what we can say—this would clearly impose a warped sense of the subject on the average reader. Remsense ‥ 论 21:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but it's not particularly unusual to introduce topics with similar uncertainties in this kind of way. The sentences starting with "Time is ..." and "It is a ..." make tacit claims about certainty of the topic which is deeply inaccurate.

Here are a couple of examples where the unsettledness is addressed up front:

"... However, its nature has led to millennia of analyses, explanations, and debate among philosophers, scientists, and theologians. Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied or even considered consciousness. ..." (Consciousness)

"... Whether free will exists, what it is and the implications of whether it exists or not constitute some of the longest running debates of philosophy. ..." (Free will)

Whether time is in the same category as these examples is of course debatable. -- Stephen.G.McAteer (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's simply bad didactic writing to introduce unsettledness (et al.) as the very first thing about just about any topic. I want to stress this is merely a matter of degree for me: surely elucidation can wait until later in the first paragraph, or maybe even the second paragraph, of the first section. Otherwise, how are we logically justifying having an article about such a murky topic to begin with? Remsense ‥ 论 23:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think we're on a very similar page to each other. But I do think murky articles can be very interesting, you just need to call it what it is. The article on race is another example which I think takes a bit too long to address the murkyness issue.

I almost feel like there needs to be a kind of a set-play or formulation for addressing topics that are socially constructed fictions (despite people's intuitive acceptance otherwise). (Probably much broader than appropriate for this talk page - and likely already a topic of discussion I'm ignorant of.) -- Stephen.G.McAteer (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've grappled with this a lot—I don't mean to come off quite so dismissive of your concerns—ultimately, we fall back on representing material proportionately to how our sources do, which is more or less the foundation of our editorial policy. In this case, it seems a perfect time (a-ha) to consult other tertiary sources and see how they introduce, define, and initially sketch the idea of time. That is often how we gain some clarity and assurance we're presenting very broad, very abstract concepts correctly. Remsense ‥ 论 23:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias present two central definitions of the concept of time: one is the persistence of existence, and the other is the sequence of events. The first views time as a dimension within which processes and the sequence of events occur, while the second focuses on the movements or occurrences themselves. At the core of the philosophical debate lies the question: Is time a dimension or rather a sequence of events? Additionally, another issue arises—whether time is objective or subjective—and it pertains to both fundamental definitions. In my opinion, the two initial definitions already encompass all philosophical debates, in one variation or another. In the Hebrew Wikipedia, an attempt is made to distinguish more clearly between the duration of existence and the sequence of events, defining time as follows: "Time is a fundamental concept that describes the persistence of existence and the sequence of events." It seems to me a more precise formulation, whereas in the English Wikipedia, the two definitions are intertwined without a sharp distinction between them. קניגס (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are struggling by demanding that the word Time must have a single definition. The word Time is clearly polysemous (it has more than one core meaning). Time is used to refer (in different contexts) to both the 'progression of existence' (your phrase, which is a non-specific collective noun) AND to the measurement / calibration and indexing of change/events and change rate i.e. as abstract measurement framework (i.e. a dimension). One word, two distinct meanings.

2. Your 'continuous progression of existence' is very vague. The physical evidence of this is change (e.g. motion). Look around you. The continuous flow of change events (as encompassed in Time the collective noun)) is empirical and physical. BUT change is (by definition) reference-frame (e.g. quantum) specific. So not one universal singular arrow of 'Time', but quintillions of arrows of Change. Time, one word, two distinct meanings, both reference the underlaying physical evidence of change in distinct contexts (i.e. the 'flow' of change and the dimension of change). Smorley99 (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In philosophy and science, it is customary to distinguish between three main conceptions of time:

Time as a dimension – a view that regards time as a fourth dimension, in addition to the three dimensions of space. According to this approach, time is an axis along which events unfold, serving as a framework within which things occur—similar to physical space.

Chronological time – time as a linear sequence in which events occur in causal order. This approach emphasizes the relationships between cause and effect but is also used to denote measurable intervals throughout history (such as “the Middle Ages”) or within the cycle of a day or year (such as “sunset time”).

Cyclical time – a conception that views time as a recurring phenomenon manifesting in fixed patterns, such as the rotation of the Earth, the motion of celestial bodies, or the operation of clocks. This conception allows the measurement of periods and the determination of dates through fixed units of time—hours, days, and years—which are themselves commonly referred to as “time.”

Within each of these conceptions, various philosophical discussions arise, including the question of whether time is objective—an entity independent of human consciousness—or subjective—a product of the way human beings perceive and understand reality. קניגס (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current lead appears to define time primarily as "the continued sequence of existence," which may reflect a selective use of sources. It omits other significant perspectives, such as time as a chronological sequence of events or as a physical measure based on periodic motion קניגס (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "negligable" in "though this is considered negligable outside of" to "negligible" Wiretail (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done meamemg (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word phenomenon is needed in the first line. And then this line The concept of time can be complex. Multiple notions exist, and defining time in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars. The challenge should be in the lead. I think the word phenomenon is important also. Inayity (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

קניגס (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]