Does "time" really exist?

Time is a strange thing.

Everything that IS developed through time i.e. from the big bang, to the establishment of a planet, to the relaxation of stresses into the accumulation of matter we call living processes, all the way to the Human - all this is made between space-time and matter. Indeed, we are forced to to somehow recognize that time is the "hidden" quintessence, the "5th" element which allows processes to re-integrate into a deeper integration over evolutionary time, up until the Human.

So time is real - very real; and yet, our consciousness has this 'witness' quality that seems to transcend time, even though, paradoxically, that it is built and made real through the process of time.

Time is real, and its a gift; yet the Human mind seems able to sense timelessness, or infinity - a truly horrifying thought because of its sheer infinitude; we are creatures who like living, like playing, and like finitude, paradoxically. Facing eternity makes us wonder "why"?

a reply to: muzzleflash

Kinda like Zeno's Paradox?

I wish it didn't. I hate time, even more than I hate money. You are either waiting for more of it, or you don't have enough of it to spend on things you want. You never have enough. It's not possible to ever have enough, and the only way to be completely satiated is if it had never existed in the first place.

Life would be wonderful without time, or money. Heaven must be more incredible than anyone can imagine.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
You're moving. So therefore time exists.

It's probably best expressed as a paradox.
It does and doesn't exist both simultaneously.

So although I'm partially contradicting my earlier statement, I am also not contradicting it.

I would say better explained as measurement. Which does not literally exist in any physical terms.

Time is used to express change.. but change does not happen because of time. We are only recording those changes with time.

I.E If no one was around to hear the tree fall (To see the world move or change.) it would still make a sound (change would still happen.)

originally posted by: Astrocyte
Time is real, and its a gift; yet the Human mind seems able to sense timelessness, or infinity - a truly horrifying thought because of its sheer infinitude; we are creatures who like living, like playing, and like finitude, paradoxically. Facing eternity makes us wonder "why"?

Pffffffft. I'm looking forward to eternity. I can't wait for the trump to sound so I can check out of here with all my Christian brothers and sisters. Eternity is bliss.

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: dfnj2015

Before the winter came, the fall made its apperance. The winter killed of everything that was sick and weak, and in the spring nature feed of the very essence winter gave. When the summer days appeared all life seemed to be as one, and then fall came again and took it all away..

I found a simpler version of the same poem:

Birth, copulation, death.

originally posted by: DeadCat

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
You're moving. So therefore time exists.

It's probably best expressed as a paradox.
It does and doesn't exist both simultaneously.

So although I'm partially contradicting my earlier statement, I am also not contradicting it.

I would say better explained as measurement. Which does not literally exist in any physical terms.

Time is used to express change.. but change does not happen because of time. We are only recording those changes with time.

I.E If no one was around to hear the tree fall (To see the world move or change.) it would still make a sound (change would still happen.)

I've heard a another way of interpreting the tree-sound question: If no one were around to hear it, the forest would not exist.

Meaning without subjectivity, all objectivity (which includes time) would not exist.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: DeadCat

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
You're moving. So therefore time exists.

It's probably best expressed as a paradox.
It does and doesn't exist both simultaneously.

So although I'm partially contradicting my earlier statement, I am also not contradicting it.

I would say better explained as measurement. Which does not literally exist in any physical terms.

Time is used to express change.. but change does not happen because of time. We are only recording those changes with time.

I.E If no one was around to hear the tree fall (To see the world move or change.) it would still make a sound (change would still happen.)

I've heard a another way of interpreting the tree-sound question: If no one were around to hear it, the forest would not exist.

Meaning without subjectivity, all objectivity (which includes time) would not exist.

To claim that would be where the paradox entails.

You could claim that in order for something to truly exist.. it needs to be observed. To be observed, is to exist in the subjective reality.

All the while, if you attest to that claim , you are stating that nothing exists outside of what you observe.

Which is just not true.

originally posted by: DeadCat
I don't mean to take away from the value of this topic, but I thought it was generally accepted that time doesn't actually exist as a physical thing?

Time is an illusion, created by things moving. If everything in the universe was at a stand still, there would be no need for time, because you would know where everything is always.

This is why our universe is considered to be 4th dimensional. Because you need time as a fourth dimension in order to accurately navigate it as all things are moving, and would be in a different spot in the universe if you did not account for time.

Just one more thing. The idea that anything is an illusion is also an illusion.

originally posted by: DeadCat

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: DeadCat

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
You're moving. So therefore time exists.

It's probably best expressed as a paradox.
It does and doesn't exist both simultaneously.

So although I'm partially contradicting my earlier statement, I am also not contradicting it.

I would say better explained as measurement. Which does not literally exist in any physical terms.

Time is used to express change.. but change does not happen because of time. We are only recording those changes with time.

I.E If no one was around to hear the tree fall (To see the world move or change.) it would still make a sound (change would still happen.)

I've heard a another way of interpreting the tree-sound question: If no one were around to hear it, the forest would not exist.

Meaning without subjectivity, all objectivity (which includes time) would not exist.

To claim that would be where the paradox entails.

You could claim that in order for something to truly exist.. it needs to be observed. To be observed, is to exist in the subjective reality.

All the while, if you attest to that claim , you are stating that nothing exists outside of what you observe.

Which is just not true.

The paradox goes both ways which is the point why you can't just claim "Which is just not true."

a reply to: dfnj2015

The idea that anything is an illusion is also an illusion.

Let's take that further... consciousness is an illusion.

a reply to: dfnj2015

In theory, you could dabble with it, and manipulate definitions,

But in the end we all know that a sound is made by the tree, even if no one is around to hear it. It's physics. It's how reality works.

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: DeadCat

Sorry for the vagueness. I was (sort of) responding to some assertions that time is exclusively a human construct. The (maybe poor) comparison I was making is that, in my opinion, the sounds made by a falling tree happen whether or not we are around to hear it. Time would be a "thing" whether or not people ever existed.

What evidence do you have that time is a "thing". I can't hold time in my hand like I experience holding an apple. Time is just a word as far as I can tell.

a reply to: peskyhumans

What if time is all there is? Even "being" in the now has its temporal-aspects, as Husserl showed, and Evan Thompson expands upon in his Mind and Life.

We also age, and change, and everything around us changes. How can change occur in the presence of timelessness?

Rather, we exist as time-beings, so being "against time" is truly to put yourself as odds with the very nature of existence. Watch "Alive Through the Looking Glass" for a nice allegory of times-importance, value, and goodness.

Time, of course, is an abstraction for 'change'; it exists even if we do not "keep it", because things change, and change has a sequential-order to it, no?

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: peskyhumans

What if time is all there is? Even "being" in the now has its temporal-aspects, as Husserl showed, and Evan Thompson expands upon in his Mind and Life.

We also age, and change, and everything around us changes. How can change occur in the presence of timelessness?

Rather, we exist as time-beings, so being "against time" is truly to put yourself as odds with the very nature of existence. Watch "Alive Through the Looking Glass" for a nice allegory of times-importance, value, and goodness.

Time, of course, is an abstraction for 'change'; it exists even if we do not "keep it", because things change, and change has a sequential-order to it, no?

Change happens, whether we keep track of it with time or not. Change is independent of time. Time is only the way that we account for the changes being made.

If we did not keep track of our age, we would still age. If we did not keep track of what time of day it was, the days and nights would still cycle. We use time as a measurement for changes.

originally posted by: DeadCat
a reply to: dfnj2015

In theory, you could dabble with it, and manipulate definitions,

But in the end we all know that a sound is made by the tree, even if no one is around to hear it. It's physics. It's how reality works.

Let me try asking it another way. If human beings did not exist in the Universe, would the Universe really exist if no one was around to experience it? I did not invent this idea. The idea that the tree made a sound only exists in your imagination. The very idea of "physics" only exists with the context of human experience. I would say neither interpretation is "right". But without someone to experience the sound the interpretation the forest does not exist is equally valid even if it makes you uncomfortable.

The paradox is all objectivity is subjectively determined. It's really not clear that time is real if it's purely subjectively identified.

a reply to: dfnj2015

How do we measure:
Time: forces that changed, forces that are currently changing, forces expected to change
Will: forces that changed, forces that are currently changing, forces expected to change

Will has/is the ability to affect change in forces?
Time has/is the ability to affect change in forces?

Ask yourself this: when does time stop and your will begin?

Or how about this logic: something can't come from nothing, because nothing doesn't exist. If nothing did exist, it would be a something, right? So what exists must have always existed (in some form or another), right? Well, that rules out causality (cause and effect / "time" as it is currently thought of) because an effect cannot be its on cause - that would be paradoxical in terms of causality, so causality cannot be from always. But we must be from always, and there is change, so we still need something that causes change, but is itself, free from cause. And what is that thing? By its very definition, it's free will.

Time is the measure of what was willed, what is being willed, and what is expected to be willed.

Time is will.



And "real-space" is "mind-space". "Real-space" is God's "mind-space".

originally posted by: DeadCat

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: peskyhumans

What if time is all there is? Even "being" in the now has its temporal-aspects, as Husserl showed, and Evan Thompson expands upon in his Mind and Life.

We also age, and change, and everything around us changes. How can change occur in the presence of timelessness?

Rather, we exist as time-beings, so being "against time" is truly to put yourself as odds with the very nature of existence. Watch "Alive Through the Looking Glass" for a nice allegory of times-importance, value, and goodness.

Time, of course, is an abstraction for 'change'; it exists even if we do not "keep it", because things change, and change has a sequential-order to it, no?

Change happens, whether we keep track of it with time or not. Change is independent of time. Time is only the way that we account for the changes being made.

If we did not keep track of our age, we would still age. If we did not keep track of what time of day it was, the days and nights would still cycle. We use time as a measurement for changes.

I agree that change is real. I am not sure change and time are the same thing.